Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

important economic data sets

the data sets are new (released in 2006), and are by far the richest set of economic data relating to the Confederacy. They are even available online (and also on paper) and a rich resource indeed for the CSA. Rjensen 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in every specific, the issue of undue weight applies. I think this should boil down to one hyperlink (which you should have added yourself). IMHO BusterD 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the great fature of Wiki is that it can carry this kind of very useful information. People interested in economics and business issues will find it invaluable; everyone else can ignore it without getting harmed or annoyed. Rjensen 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• One link should be sufficient. We shouldn't be pasting tables of contents from reference books in articles. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate collection"??? Please don't be insulting. Some editors work hard to add fresh new material. Rjensen 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't intend any insult. Actually, it is a real wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

apology accepted. My point is that it was NOT an "indiscriminate" lumping of info. I sat down one night and went through the Carter datasets and picked only those I thought would be of most value to Wiki users of this article. (there are tens of thousands of data sets in that vast collection.) Rjensen 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia on Map

The map of the Confederacy includes West Virgina as under Confederate control. Does this need to be changed? omg ShiftPlusOne 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is correct. There was no state of West Virginia as separate political entity from Virginia until June 1863, some two years into the war. Up until that point it was Union-occupied (or liberated, depending on your point of view) Virginia. Furthermore, the CSA never relinquished its claim (see title of the map), with both the C.S. Congress and the Virginia legislature passing resolutions reasserting the borders of Virginia in response to the creation of the Union state of West Virginia. Nicholas F 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. I guess i failed to notice the 'areas claimed' part... omg ShiftPlusOne 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Guerilla warfare

An edit on Jan 14th completely changes the meaning of the sentence on surrender. Originally it stated that the fighting came to an end after the surrender, because "there was no guerrilla warfare afterwards." The new sentence states that the guerilla warfare ended with the surrender. The original statement points out that the people of the South did not turn to guerilla tactics, but instead honored the surrender. The new statement makes it sound like the South waged guerilla tactics the entire war, which is patently untrue. Reverting.--Bridgecross 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism

If I knew how to fix this page I would, can someone more experienced clean up all this drivel with "Jeffrey Bell" and the Skull and Bones as the flag. IS there no one monitoring this?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.236.209 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).71.108.236.209 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ANGRY!!

This article is very one sided and shows the confederacy from a northern viewpoint! The war was not over slavery it was over southern independence, taxation, and the rights of the states and people. The north was only using slavery to justify thier senseless invasion of the south. I am a black man and my ancestor was a free black confederate who recieved equal pay, a voice, and kindness while serving in the confederacy. Trust me he didn't sighn up to defend slavery either, he sighned up to defend his famly, friends, home, and country, the Confederate States of America.69.19.14.15 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Jamal Byrd

My god a black Southerner who knows the truth, thank god for people like you. A couple months ago I stopped reading this article, because all it does is p*** me off with its Northern bias. No matter what truth a Southerner interjects here it gets edited out or changed to the point that it nolonger resembles what we placed originally. This article is entirely subjective from the Northern point of view. --Clay 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then if the war wasn't over slavery and instead over state's rights, how come the Confederate constitution actually removed several key state powers (such as actually being able to decide if a state was to be free or slave) and exchanged them for fairly weak ones all the while when it specifically mentions slavery on a very large number of occassions? Individuals may very well have had good intention to serve the cause, but you better believe that the Southern states were overwhelmingly pushed into the war by the ever-present slavocracy that refused any form of question of their all sacred institution and threatened seccession on every possible occassion otherwise. What you fail to realize is that, even with a Republican majority in the Congress and a Republican President, Southerners still held more than enough power to prevent any form of constitutional amendment to ban slavery or any other viewed way of Southern life. Also, considering that when the Confederacy attempted to raise a black company in Richmond during 1865, it caused a public riot even though the South needed all the troops it could possibly get, so I'm severely doubting that your granddad actually served Confederate government in any military fashion. RPH 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The South probably did fight to preserve slavery, but, still we need to put the principle of regional self-determination into account. Think about IRA and East Timor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyi (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

EVerytime someone attempts to add any logical discussion regarding the truth it gets nailed as vandalism and deleted. The 'powers that be' will never open their eyes to history, they rely strictly on their so called history books that simply says that the war was over slavery. I can site source afetr source showing it was state's rights and just the South in general being feed up with the North's BS. I can also show them picture after picture of Black units carrying Confederate Battle Flags... but it's stillg et labeleed Vandalism and be deleted. This is why no one puts any faith in Wikipedia... it is beyong bias.

There are no 'powers that be' on wikipedia. That is both the greatest strength and the weakness. The 'states' rights' argument has a lot of flaws in it. The biggest is the fact that, pre-war and pre-succession, the southern states opposed expressions of non-slave-states rights when they threatened or tended to weaken the slave power. The whole fugitive slave law history is rife with that. They were perfectly willing to trample states rights when it suited them. "States rights" was a fig leaf, just like today when politicians say one thing and everyone knows they really mean something else. DMorpheus 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"States' Rights" is a loaded term, as it can mean lots of things. But regional self-determination is different. When IRA fought for Irish independence, it never say they fight for any "Ireland's rights" but rather outright independence. Wooyi 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right its a loaded term. But Ireland is not a comparable situation. Ireland has never been a region of England. The IRA claimed they were fighting to restore the independence of Ireland. The south was never an independent entity separate from the rest of the USA. Whether the individual states were is an interesting argument and is not nearly as clear-cut as some would have us believe. DMorpheus 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new Wikpedia User i just wanted to contribute my thoughts about this issue although it make sense that confedracy fought to preserve slavery in form of states rights to permit or not permit slavery but i believe when someone does write a Wikpedia article it should be unbiased and both points of prespective should be covered.--Missionimpossible 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope

I hate to argue with the masters at Wikipedia, but the Confederate States of America actually WERE recognized by a foreign entity... The Papal States of Italy. In fact, the Vatican newspaper referred to Jefferson Davis as "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America." In 1866, while Davis was imprisoned at Fort Monroe, Pope Pius IX actually sent Davis a signed photograph, along with a crown of thorns that he wove with his own two hands. I don't know how to do it, but I want to mark this article for review by an expert. Let's keep this article unbiased... I sense a strong bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.179.64 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Oh, and by the way, my source is historian Mr. Clint Johnson, who has studied American history for 30 years and who, I believe, has his own Wikipedia article. --68.18.179.64 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been raised before, please look in the archives. CS Secretary of State Judah Benjamin addressed this directly in his official correspondence and rejected the interpretation that the salutation that Pope Puis IX used in his letter to Jefferson Davis (which is what the Vatican newspaper would have been quoting) constituted recognition and viewed it as nothing more than form of politeness. Nicholas F 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the pope's correspondence, I said the address that was in the Vatican's newspaper reporting on Jefferson Davis' arrest. --68.18.179.64 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pope sent a photograph? recognition = Pope sending an ambassador. No one sent an ambassador. Rjensen 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there are other ways of bestowing recognition besides sending an ambassador, referring to Jefferson Davis as the President of the CSA in a newspaper isn't one of them.Nicholas F 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause

Somewhere on wikipedia there needs to be an article that deals more thoroughly with Causation in history & then this article needs to link to it. Many things could be pointed to as a 'cause' if all that is necessary is establishing some powerful chain of events leading up to some other event. The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism could be considered causes of the American Civil War - as they led to economic visions that differed from that of Jeffersonian agrarianism, and to political visions that included a federal government actively supporting the development of infrastructure to enable industry & commerce. --JimWae 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Readmission to the Union

It is neither inaccurate nor POV to say that the Southern states were readmitted to the Union. If a state is denied representation in Congress, it is by definition foreign. Article V of the U.S. Constitution states, "No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." It follows, then, that any state being involuntarily denied its representation in the Senate is recognized by Congress as a foreign entity (at least de facto if not de jure). The issue regarding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates that Congress dealt with the Southern states as foreign territories. Their suffrage in the Senate was denied until they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment at which point they were readmitted. I have on this basis restored the original wording.—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There were three operational theories on the legal basis for restoring the Southern states to full status within the Union. Charles Sumner advanced the theory of state suicide -- a de facto argument that would have required readmission on the same terms as any other new state was admitted. Thaddeus Stevens went a step further and argued that the entire area needed to go through a new territorial stage -- a process that would not guarantee even the same borders and states that existed before the war. For the purposes of this discussion it needs to be noted that neither of these theories were adopted.

Instead, the dominant theory was that the states had never left the Union but by the operation of individuals the states had ceased to have republican government (see Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution). Congress's and/or the President's job during Reconstruction was to define when the states had properly re instituted republican government. Readmission of a state's representatives to Congress was a major, but not the final, step in this process -- Congress had this authority from each house's Constitutional power to determine the validity of the credentials of its own members. Tom 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a republican government? Montesquieu defined it as follows: "A republican government is that in which the body, or only a part, of the people is possessed of the supreme power; a monarchical, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws; a despotic government, that in which a single person, without law and without rule, directs every thing by his own will and caprice." This definition was quoted and endorsed during the debates in the state constitutional conventions. Congressmen throughout the nineteenth century asserted that a republican government was one with three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. All of the Southern states retained these characteristics, regardless of which definition you like. But the entire argument is moot anyway. If the Southern states did not become independent by virtue of their own secession ordinances, then neither did the original thirteen colonies become independent by virtue of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore if the CSA government was illegitimately formed, so was the USA government, since both were created by seceded states.—Emote _{Talk Page} 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You can argue with whether the United States Congress correctly defined what a republican form of government is, but that doesn't change the fact that restoring republican government, rather than readmitting legally seceded states, is the actual, historical rationale that they preceded on. It is arguments on the legality of secession that are moot for purposes of describing, in an encyclopedia article, the decision-making actually used in creating and implementing reconstruction policy. The actual Reconstruction Acts as passed by Congress are available at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/reconstruction.html and they clearly show that the issue was the restructuring of state governments and constitutions, not readmission. As far as the DOI reference, the colonies became independent for all intents and purposes only after they carried the day militarily -- something the CSA failed to do. Tom 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is POV to say the CSA was a foreign country. It is POV to say they were never a foreign country. Say neither. It is POV to say they were readmitted to the Union. It is POV to say they were not readmitted to the Union. Say neither --JimWae 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is POV to say that they were readmitted to the Union, it is also POV to say that they were readmitted to Congress.—Emote _{Talk Page} 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, as I said, it would be POV to say they were NOT readmitted to the union... only readmitted to Congress. I am not advocating that we say they were ONLY readmitted to Congress. It is correct & NPOV to say they were readmitted to Congress. If you have a NPOV way to say anything beyond that, let's see it here --JimWae 03:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument: "Readmitted to the Union" is POV because it assumes they left at some point.

My corollary: "Readmitted to Congress" is therefore POV because it assumes they left at some point.—Emote _{Talk Page} 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uhm.. they did leave Congress, voluntarily - except Andrew Johnson stayed--JimWae 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and that is my point. The act of departure is a demonstrable one (and therefore not POV). Just as they left Congress voluntarily, they also left the Union voluntarily. Not only did the Southern states declare themselves to be separate, but they also were treated by the U.S. government as though they were separate.

The U.S. Constitution requires that three-fourths of the state legislatures ratify an amendment before it may be enacted. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, it was legitimately ratified by the required number of states. (The Southern states at this time held their seats in Congress, were recognized as part of the Union, and voted to ratify this amendment.) When the Fourteenth Amendment was first proposed, however, it did not even meet the required two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, much less the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Consequently, Congress kicked the Southern states out of Congress in order to get the two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. Then they kicked the same states out of the Union in order to get the three-fourths vote from the state legislatures. In order to be readmitted to the Union, the Southern states were forced to ratify the amendment. New Jersey submitted the following resolution in response to the aforementioned events:

That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union.

The actions of Congress attest to the departure of the Southern states (involuntary in this case). And above is the direct testimony of a Northern state that these states were kicked out. The fact of their departure (in one form or another) has been demonstrated here, thus it is not POV to say that they were readmitted to the Union.—Emote _{Talk Page} 05:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• What you call "your points" are being presented by you as original research, and even if you had sources, they are still one-sided. Neither is how wikipedia works --JimWae 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented the case as original research because this is a discussion page and I have neither the time nor the obligation here to cite sources that you would (by your own admission) throw in the trash anyway. I could argue that "readmitted to Congress" is original research and that even if you had sources, they would be one-sided. That doesn't hold much water. At any rate, I despise revert wars, so I will leave the wording as you have it. Perhaps other editors will care to express their opinions on this issue. If not, then you win. Nevertheless, the evidence has been presented.—Emote _{Talk Page} 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Re-admitted to the Union" is POV because according to the US government (see. Texas v. White) they never legally left. It seems better to just describe the event (their representitives were allowed to take seats, though they had been refused previously) rather than make a legal claim when the underlying legal principles are (and were at the time) in dispute. Eluchil404 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire table therefore becomes meaningless as its purpose is to demonstrate the governmental changes regarding the Southern states. If "readmitted to the Union" is POV, so also is "secession ordinance" and "admitted to CSA" since it is argued that these states never actually seceded and that the Confederate government never actually existed. If you intend to be consistent, you need to delete the whole table or else go through and put the word "alleged" at the front of every column heading.—Emote _{Talk Page} 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Map points

I came to the article after seeing it listed on the WP:GAN page. At first glance, the most obvious thing I noted was the maps. The main map which shows the country nicely (though not all disputes in detail) is buried near the bottom of the article in the Geography section. It or one like it would be very helpful in the infobox or otherwise near the top of the article. Also the locator map in the infobox only shows the "core" states and excludes Arizona, Indian territory, and (I believe) West Virginia as well. It would be better for it to deal with the broader claims I think, since they were as legally valid as the rest (Missouri and Kentucky are closer cases) and core state borders make a poor proxy for actual control given how much territory was under Northern occupation from early in the war. Eluchil404 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Confederation versus Federation

One of the things we were taught in school was that the South was a confederation (States had a lot of power, kind of like the European Union today gives a lot of veto power to member countries) while the North was a Federation with over-riding Federal central control. Failure to **clearly state** this in the article is a huge hole in the government section. --anon

Federation and confederation are identical in practice as well as in etymology. Compare the U.S. Constitution with the Confederate Constitution. There is little difference. Both governments were federations of states (legally and practically). It was not until Lincoln took office that the North acquired de facto "Federal central control" and soon forced the same fate upon the South.—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one theory among several available. DMorpheus 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Stephens argues the issue as follows:

The great American lexicographer, Noah Webster, says of this word "Federal," that it is derived from the Latin word "Foedus," which means a League. A League he defines to be "an Alliance or Confederacy between Princes or States for their mutual aid or defence." And, in defining the meaning of the word Federal, he uses this language: "Consisting in a Compact between States or Nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as, a Federal Government, such as that of the United States." … Federal, from its very origin and derivation, therefore, has no meaning, and can have none, dissociated from Compact or Agreement of some sort, and it is seldom ever used to qualify any Compacts or Agreements except those between States or Nations. So that Federal and Confederate mean substantially the same thing. When applied to States they both imply and import a Compact between States (A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, Vol. I, pp. 167, 168).

—Emote _{Talk Page} 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Confederation and Federation are not inter-changeable. The Confederate government was weaker with regard to the will of the states. In part, the inability of the Confederate Executive to force states to accept the national government's will, helped contribute to the Confederacy's defeat. Regardless, the very difference between confederation and federation is exactly how the first poster in this thread described it. Now if you want to argue that the Confederate government acted in a more federal style, than in name, thats allowable. However, its bad civics to claim that the two words and forms of governing are equal. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to legal authorities like Vattel and Burlamaqui, common sense suggests that there is no substantial difference between "federation" and "with federation"—they mean exactly the same thing. Compare Google's definition results: Federation and Confederation. If you mean that there was a de facto difference between the USA and the CSA governments, I agree. But de jure (i.e., according to their Constitutions) they were the same—each was a league or alliance of states. The Union government never had "overriding Federal central control" de jure. What exactly was the Confederate executive trying to force on the states that it was unable to accomplish?—Emote _{Talk Page} 04:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cities With CSA Sympathies

I reversed a section that referred to six cities in which it was ambiguously stated that some of them had significant CSA sympathies. Of these six, two were never claimed even by the CSA to be part of the CSA (Baltimore and Washington) so discussing their loyalties under the geographic section of the CSA (or any other part of this article) seems irrelevant -- especially since the rioting in Baltimore is covered extensively. Also to bring up this one example of Baltimore is misleading -- although it did register a high number of voters for Brechkinridge in the 1860 election, it also had many social and economic characteristics that tied it with the North. St. Louis, Louisville, and Wheeling were outside of the black belts of their respective states and Union sentiment predominated. This leaves only Alexandria. Perhaps a better way to bring in some of the information is to include a section discussing the differences in Big City CSA (including Nasville, New Orleans, etc,) versus the rural CSA. Tom 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Morally superior?

In 1861 C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens stated in the Cornerstone Speech that the new government "rest[ed] 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."

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln said (in his fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois) the following: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing."

The difference does not seem to be as great as media portrayal would have you believe. What about Wikipedia? 217.236.243.74 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can cherry-pick quotations from plenty of people to create almost any ill-founded impression you like. Would you like to see Marx's praise of capitalism? DMorpheus 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I sure do. But do you seriously think that the impression created by this quotation is more ill-founded than the impression generally portrayed in the media - "fighting for equality ..." etc.? I take Lincoln's word - regarding his opinion on slavery, but also regarding what he said in the quotation. Confederates stating such beliefs are labelled as racists. It's of course always easier to identify "the good and the bad guys" when the history book uses 'proper' retouching. 217.236.217.208 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the place to debate the morality of the ACW or slavery. Of course I think it is obvious that Lincoln abhorred slavery. So to answer your question, I say with a loud and thunderous YES, the impression you are trying to create is more ill-founded than the general impression that Lincoln was on the right side of this issue.

Creating false impressions by cherry-picking a quote is easy and misleading, but you know that already. Politicians make very carefully-nuanced statements all the time, because they are trying to make a specific point at a specific time during an election or they are just pandering to their audiences. People also change their views over time as they are confronted with new knowledge. Look at how George Washington's views changed during his lifetime. This sort of isolated factoid-grabbing is just not a valid method.

There is also a logical fallacy here. The fact that the union cause, or Lincoln himself, was not 100% pure may be correct. That is a completely separate question from whether the Confederacy or slavery was OK, and does not make them morally equal. Not by a long, long, long, long shot. Might as well argue that the Nazis were OK because they fought the Red Army. DMorpheus 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Morality is ambiguous at best. Few things in this world are completely evil or completely good. The Nazis came up with solutions that led to the U.S. Shuttle, a gun that could shoot around corners, jet engines, fought communism, fought communism in France (would it really have been that bad if we let Germany keep France?), etc. Americans have confined Japanese-Americans, made slaves of those who were black, have killed millions of civilians in war, etc. On top of that, we all have our ideas of what morality is and (as pointed out above), it changes over time. Society's views also change over time and that must be taken into account.

Slavery is morally abhorrent, but it wasn't always so. We came to that conclusion only about 150 years ago. To judge anyone in the past as evil because they reflected society's norms at the time, is disingenuous and misleading. For the sake of accuracy and to retain an NPOV and if we are going to discuss morailty, I recommend doing so on a philosophy page. Whichever side was "morally superior" is irrelevant and ambiguous. BQZip01 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(would it really have been that bad if we let Germany keep France?) Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. The answer, in fact, is "yes." john k 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note I didn't say we let Hitler/Nazis maintain power. Please note I said that tongue-in-cheek, not in seriousness BQZip01 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did of course not try to create such an absolutely ridiculous impression - of course Lincoln abhorred slavery - I did write that the difference was not as great as stated today; and I wrote that I take Lincoln's word on slavery. No doubt that he detested it. The impression that the quote made on you was different that what I expected. I did and do not see any word supporting slavery in it. Lincoln was a strong opponent of slavery. Period. In fact in exactly the same debate he goes on like this

" ... denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes."

Do you think I should have added this? I don't think so. The point of the above quotation was to raise awareness that the picture is more complex. And when people are really surprised and often find it hard to believe that Lincoln could even say something like it (apropos negating suffrage, intermarriage etc.) is obvious that the historic picture is blurred - that's what I mean with retouching.

By the way – the heading was just meant to be 'loud' – and regarding human rights I surely do answer it with YES.

(Nevertheless there is deeper and motivating idea behind the question – it's the following thought: a 'moral' that's only 'moral' if the economy says 'yep' (if other factors make it appropriate) is amoral. And don't get me wrong again. This is NOT an accusation against Lincoln.)

217.236.221.189 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Lincoln and Stephens (who were, iirc, old friends from Lincoln's time in Congress) is still fairly great. The key part of Stephens' comment is not the part that said that blacks were inferior - I daresay that, unfortunately, nearly every mainstream politician in the United States at the time would have agreed with this (perhaps not Sumner and a few radicals, but almost everybody). The key part is his claim that their natural condition was slavery. Sure, everyone was a racist (although I think that one can plausibly argue that Lincoln had become less racist by the time he died than he was in 1858), but not everybody was willing to outright claim that the natural condition for blacks was slavery. And Lincoln's dislike of slavery was, in fact, based on the moral grounds that he did not think that it was morally justifiable to hold other human beings as slaves even if he felt the particular category of human beings being held as slave was inferior. The key issue at the time was not the equality of the races, it was slavery, and it is unsurprising that this is the issue on which Lincoln differs from Stephens. The issue of racial equality only comes into play during Reconstruction. Given general racial attitudes in the north, where the opinion expressed by Lincoln was relatively progressive, it is rather unsurprising that this debate, unlike the one over slavery, was settled temporarily in favor of the South's position - unlike their views of slavery, which a majority in the north clearly disliked, most northerners were not, in fact, interested in equality for blacks. It took another hundred years for that idea to have its day. john k 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Stephens regarded blacks as an inferior race, but he did not view them as "less human" than whites. He simply regarded them as childlike people who needed to be taken care of. He had a strong affinity for the blacks throughout the South. As a lawyer, he defended a negro woman who had been accused of murder and was easily going to be convicted. Instead of being executed, she was promptly acquitted by virtue of Stephens's defense. At the Hampton Roads Conference, a concerned Stephens inquired of Lincoln how the blacks would subsist after being suddenly thrown onto the street (emancipated) without homes or possessions. Lincoln responded, "Let them root, hog, or die." The Confederate Vice President was shocked by Lincoln's indifferent attitude toward the blacks and their welfare. But Stephens's love for the blacks did not lack reciprocity. On July 4, 1876, more than three thousand negros from Taliaferro and the adjacent counties gathered at Liberty Hall to sing for the old crippled statesman. An observer recorded the subsequent events as follows:

When the whole chorus was over, the young man upon the steps, as the spokesman of the assembly asked Mr. Stephens to address them. … He could not stand, but leaning forward in his chair, with his arms resting on the railing, spoke to the hushed crowd; and weak as he was, and even in that unfavorable position, his voice at times, under the inspiration of his feelings, rang out so that it could be heard at the village nearly half a mile distant. He told them how gratified he was to see the progress the colored people were making, especially in his neighborhood, amid the friendly relations of the two races; he advised them, cautioned them, encouraged them to persevere. He told them of the duties they owed to themselves, of the duty of educating their children that they might understand the position in which they were placed, the new responsibilities that rested on them, and the all-importance of a faithful and intelligent performance of duty. His heart seemed overflowing with kindness and benevolence, and he ceased only when he was too much exhausted to speak further.

My point is that the acknowledgement of an inferiority is not an intrinsically hateful attitude. Nor does the presumption of equality imply benevolence. Many Northern states (including Illinois) passed laws after the war which prohibited black residence within the state, thus effectively communicating to them, "No way will we permit you to be taken care of by these hateful Southerners, but don't you dare step foot on our soil." Consider General Sherman who despised the blacks passionately and allowed his men to rape hundreds of negro women as they burned Georgia to the ground. Contrast such actions with those of General Jackson who, when attending church, insisted that his slaves be seated alongside him rather than in the balcony designated for the blacks, commenting, "My family will sit with me." Which was the friend of the negro? The one that deemed him inferior but fed him, clothed him, boarded him, employed him, and defended him? Or the one that deemed him equal, tossed him on the street, and locked his own doors against him?—Emote _{Talk Page} 07:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Those are interesting facts which you provde. Could you plase find somewhere to cite for them, and then maybe add them to an article someplace, such as either in the main article for this talk page, or maybe in another one or a new one, such as Confederate attitudes or Slavery in the Confederacy or something like that? (By the way I didn't check to see if these articles already exist, but under different names.) Thanks. --Sm8900 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts are wrong. Sherman did not tolerate rapists and did not have many. The Illinois laws were passed by Copperheads BEFORE the war and repealed by the Republicans. Rjensen 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

Unfortunately, I had to fail this article under the good article criteria found at: WP:WIAGA. The BIG issue is the poor referencing here. There are two referencing issues:

1. References are missing in many places in the article. Many sections are entirely unreferenced.
2. No less than 3 referencing styles are used (in-line links, in-line footnotes, and Harvard referencing). Pick a style and stick to it. While no one style is prefered over any other, using a single style is a must. See citation guidelines and citation templates and how to attribute sources for more information. If these issues can be addressed, please feel free to renominate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Respective Advantages of North and South

I deleted the following italicized section from the main article because of its poor formatting (an outline inserted within a narrative) and its location in the article (in a section titled “Constitution”). The information is preserved in the event someone, or the original editor, wishes to resubmit it either as a narrative with its own section header or in an actual table. I would suggest if the tabular method is chosen that it restrict itself to the more objective factors (i.e. those expressed as ratios). Also in the population numbers the 3,000,000 plus slaves were certainly an advantage to the CSA, and the 100,000 white southerners (not counting southerners in the non-seceding border states) and 150,000 southern blacks who fought for the north would also be an additional northern advantage.

A. North's advantages over the South

1. Potential fighting and working force: 20 million citizens a) Population: 2.5:1 b) Free male population (ages 18-60): 4.4:1 2. Wealth produced: 3:1 a) Factory production: 10:1 b) Textile goods produced: 14:1 c) Iron production: 15:1 d) Coal production: 38:1 e) Farm acreage: 3:1 f) Draft animals: 1.8:1 g) Livestock: 1.5:1 h) Wheat production: 4.2:1 i) Corn production: 2:1

3. Transportation--superior in every respect

a) Railroad mileage: 7:1 b) Naval tonnage: 25:1 c) Merchant ship tonnage: 9:1 B. South's advantages over the North 1. Fighting a defensive war. Local support and familiarity with terrain 2. Positive goal: seeking independence 3. Short communication lines and friendly population 4. United public in contrast to the North. Nonslaveholders eager to volunteer to fight 5. Experienced officer corps--many veterans of the Mexican-American War joined the Confederacy 6. Cotton (24:1 advantage over North)--necessary for textile factories of England and France III. Early Strategies of the Opposing Sides Tom (North Shoreman) 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a bit suprised you stated that the slaves were never advantage to south certainly they were of some minimal help but when the union forces came near they used to run to the union lines and were never returned since they were called "Contrabands" and also they certainly did rebel since nobody except those exempt from the draft were there in south to stop the rebellion during the civil war most of these rebellions resulted in blood loss, so alhtough they did certqainly help but the disadvantages weigh more and hence it cannot be stated that they wer an advantage for confedracy. the only two advantags that the confedracy had that it didn't hqad to invade hence fighting home and didn't have to transport troops and the other most of thier officers were west point graduates so excellent millitary leadership.--Missionimpossible 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Confederacy a country

Why did you remove the part where I said that the confederacy was a country at the beggining of the article?

1. Please sign your posts. In addition, please get a screen name (It literally takes all of about a minute).
2. Please add your posts at the BOTTOM of the page.
3. I don't think I was the one that removed your posts, but from what I can see, there is no reason to include that claim. No coutry formalized relations with the confederacy, but some sold it arms. The US (and other countries) do that now, but we don't necessarily recognize their governments as the countries. Do you have a source for your claim? Since it is likely to be challenged, I recommend adding a reputable reference to your claim. To quote the box below, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the user BQZip01 i mean to formally become a country some other country has to give you political recognition and since confedracy got none either from the US or Europe i don't think it is a country.--Missionimpossible 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who reverted your statement that the CSA was a country. Obviously the United States considered the CSA as merely a group of rebels, no other nation recognized the CSA as an independent nation, the CSA (unlike the USA) failed to militarily establish its independence, and the whole issue of the extent of CSA nationalism existed within the population is a matter of debate. Presenting a disputed conclusion that you have reached as fact is not appropriate in the introduction to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The CSA was most certainly a country and a nation. Whether or not it was a state, first depends upon the usage of the word state.K1ng l0v3 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)