Talk:American Civil War

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 February 2008 - June 2008

The Lost Cause and origins of the war

For those who think slavery had nothing to do with causes of the War, see the declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials made by the original secessionists at: Causes of the Civil War.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

please read the section I started titled "Misinterpretations." It addresses some of these speeches and editorials that seem to be mischaracterized as to their content.

also, if it was all about slavery, why did some of the seceding states not do so until hostilities broke out?Cedwyn (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

because slavery was much weaker in the border states, and they were afraid (correctly so) that the war would be fought on their soil.Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the moral idea and principle of slavery, as in the owning of another human being, was not the cause of the war. Slavery was tied to the reasons (economy, states rights), but the country did not split on the debate of whether it was right or wrong. The "reasons" section should show this instead of taking a slight feel of downtalking the idea that it wasn't slavery that caused the war. Southerners didn't own slaves because they were twisted, they owned slaves because it was a 100% profit for a lot of hard work. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moral and political objections were not limited to abolitionists and Radical Republicans. Many moderate Republicans also had such objections. The article mentions moral, political and economic objections to slavery, and all three did exist.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing is the tariff dispute between South Carolina and Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodwilco (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That was the tariff dispute between South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson, and it is mentioned in the article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There still seems to be no resolution with the misleading labelling of Southern Confederate states as – Slave States. This is a rhetorical historicized way of documenting the Confederate States and it is an unfortunate mistake found in most text books and looked over by most scholars.

Though one of the main causes of the war was Slavery (Tariffs & NOT the Moral Issue), most Union states only officially abolished slavery leading up to and after Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation.

It should not say -Southern slave states- in the opening: it should just say -Southern Confederate states-.

Please consider this since no emphases is ever put on the fact that Lincoln and Union did not emphases or thoroughly enforce freedom of slaves in their own territory. -Slave States- is a rhetorical label that was used to undermine the South and give a moral superiority to the Union. (Ironic since slavery was still widely unenforced in the north and had only been abolished in most parts for about 30 years.)JusticeBlack (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So did you read what secessionists had to say for themselves?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As to whether issues of right and wrong were part of the controversy, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say about this:

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860

"We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860

Yes I did. I simply mean to say that there is a double standard in the Intro…

Union states that have slaves are referred to as -slave holding-. Confederate states are referred to as -slave states-.

I am not here dispute the morality of the south versus the north, I think that is clear. What I mean to say is that -Slave States- is a dysphemism that is not concurrent when describing all states that hold slaves.

Either we refer to confederate states as holding slaves, or refer to all stats as slave states. The latter is clearly less accurate. This is to frequently passed over in American textbooks. JusticeBlack (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that "slaveholding border states" is less awkward wording than slave border states.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

all the northern states had abolished slavery, so the designation "slave state" is precise and it was in widespread use in 1860 as a neutral, factual term used on all sides. I recommend "border slave states" Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Using "border slave states" is more consistent. Thought the term "slave states" was widespread , it is less accurate. Being consistent is more important anyhow... "Boder slave states" it is.JusticeBlack (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a great disservice to all that seek knowledge to only list Slavery as the cause or catalyst of the American Civil War. Slavery was the largest catalyst for war, but it wasn't the only fuel. Why is there no mention of State's Rights (Bill of Rights and the 10th Admendment), Trade Tariffs, and the fact that Lincoln didn't receive one electoral vote from a single State? This information is the subject matter of books such as Apostles of Disunion:Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil Warand Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism. jlzimmerman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

The article does mention states' rights and the Nullification Crisis over a tariff.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Slavery was certainly the issue the South decided to make a stand on. However, if the war was really about slavery Lincoln could have granted the South's request to leave the union on the condition that they abolish slavery. Clearly the larger issue was states' rights. Those in the south correctly predicted that our United States wouldn't last much longer and we would end up with the Federal Republic that we have today. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

let's pretend for a minute that slavery was the absolute and only reason anybody seceded (which is not true). there is still a fundamental, quantum-level difference between "secession was about slavery" and "therefore, the civil war was about slavery." the civil war was fought over secession, regardless of what motivated the secession. slavery was just the flashpoint on which all the issues conflagrated. the South did not secede over slavery itself; they seceded over what they perceived to be encroachment and dereliction of duty by the federal government. yes; many of these encroachments dealt with matters of slavery, but slavery itself was not the issue. to wit:

- even in documents such as SC's articles of secession, slavery is tangential. i.e., they felt the federal government wasn't living up to certain constitutional obligations as they pertained to slavery. they also felt that federal laws restricting slavery violated states' rights per the 10th. sticking with SC's example:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.

...an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

...the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

...The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

...The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution

...This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

...The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. >>

the pattern here, in reading from the context, is this: South Carolina seceded because of perceived constitutional violations that just happened to be rooted in slavery. let's pretend that alcohol had been banned at this point in time and replace "slavery" with "prohibition" in SC's declaration. would the fight then have been about alcohol, or overreaching of the federal government?

- Lincoln was not under any impression that he was fighting to end slavery. it wasn't outlawed when the south seceded and wasn't threatened in the southern states, per his own words. as referenced above, Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery and didn't even think the federal government had the authority to do so. Lincoln repeatedly stated he was fighting to preserve the union. So, if one side didn't think they were fighting over slavery, how could the war have been "about slavery"?

- even our own national archives paints freedom as an ancillary issue, only truly being a characteristic of the war after the issuance of the emancipation proclamation

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically.>>

- SC fired on Ft. Sumter because they perceived it a federal threat to their newly seceded state. lincoln did not withdraw federal troops or the flag, so SC fired on it. Nothing to do with slavery there - it was a response to the U.S. federal presence on SC's "sovereign" land.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The claim "Lincoln was not under any impression that he was fighting to end slavery." is flat wrong. Lincoln (and other GOP leaders) very clearly said they would put slavery on the path to extinction. Everyone in the South realized that. Did somehow people in 2008 overlook this? better they read some history books. I recommend McPherson Battle Cry for a start. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's own words:

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union.

...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery"

So to say that "Lincoln was not under any impression that he was fighting to end slavery" is unqestionably supported by his own repeated assertions. Also, if his goal was truly abolition, why did the Emancipation Proclamation not apply to border slave states?

the assertion that people are overlooking stuff and need to read some history books was downright rude.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

the statement ""I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists" was before the war started. The war changed everything, of course, which is why we study it. Lincoln destroyed slavery to save the union. As for the border states destroying slavery in 1862 there would not help save the union and did not havr thr approval of Congress. He later abolished slavery there too (through the 13th Amendment.Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the sub-article Slavery during the war for details. Lincoln made it clear what his personal feelings about the subject were, and his understanding of his role as President, and the differences between the two. But this was about an immediate, radical plan made possible by war that superceded Lincoln's gradual plan of action that led to secession. Read the FAQ for still more details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rjensen - before the war is precisely what's under debate here. my contention is that secession, not slavery, was the cause of the war. at the very least, the article should have more than "slavery" listed under causes. so finding pre-war statements from Lincoln asserting "no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists" supports that point. even the peoria address, in which he speaks possibly the most forcefully against slavery, he is still focused on preventing its spread. he even lamented the difficulty of eliminating it and what a problem freedom would pose, since blacks and whites couldn't live together. in any event, my point was that Lincoln stated repeatedly that his main purpose was to preserve the union, not end slavery. and the south was fighting for independence. so to state "slavery" as the only cause of the war is not accurate.

Muldrow - i read the "slavery during the war" article and it was interesting:

By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "...cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union."[94] The same Congressman—and his fellow Radical Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves

In 1861, Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states, and that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[96] At first, Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals John C. Fremont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) in order to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats.

...Seward told Lincoln to wait for a victory before issuing the proclamation, as to do otherwise would seem like "our last shriek on the retreat".[98] In September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided this opportunity, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added support for the proclamation.[99] Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union.

those are not the perspectives and actions of a man for whom abolition is a primary, driving goal, i.e., slavery as the cause of the war. Lincoln was not fighting to end slavery. The South was fighting to secede.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

"Lincoln (and other GOP leaders) very clearly said they would put slavery on the path to extinction. Everyone in the South realized that."

set slavery on a path to extinction != aiming to destroy it wholecloth.

Lincoln believed that as long as it could be kept from spreading, it would die a natural death. it's what he desired. he had many, many reservations about emancipation, e.g. stated his belief that the could not live in a shared society.

what the South (or at least the early seceders) realized was that the "gradual emancipation" in prohibiting slavery's expansion to new states would leave them woefully outnumbered in Congressional debates regarding slavery and that they would then be economically vulnerable to tyranny of the eventual non-slave majority. but that was the slaveholding interests. a good number of the confederate states didn't secede until hostilities broke out, i.e., slavery was not their issue. it's not like everybody in the slave states owned slaves.

peace 98.232.243.146 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The majority of the political leaders were slave owners says Ralph A. Wooster, The People in Power (1969) Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil War document

No doubt the document is locked because there are errors of omission and incorrect information favorable to specific groups of history revisionists.

For example, the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery only in territory that Neither President Lincoln or the Union controlled. Yet, NO slaves in the Union states were released by the Proclamation. The southern states and territories were specifically listed in the document.

And, The War was not fought over slavery! It was fought over double taxation on souther cotton and returning goods along with other eroding constitutional rights of the states as outlined in The Constitution.

And, NO southern ship hauled any slave to the USA for sale. Only ships owned and operated by northern state residents sailed to Africa, bought slaves from black tribal chiefs and hauled them back to America and sold them.

Finally, there were black slave owners in norther states who owned slaves and contracted them out to households and businesses during the day and fed and housed them at night.

How does the revisionists history writers square the northern riots against blacks after The War because they were taking their jobs?

And, there is much more revisionist writers refuse to research, write about and tell the full truth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Barrs (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with your various falsehoods one by one.

And, The War was not fought over slavery! You ignore, like most do, WHY tariffs and other trade arrangements that discriminated against the export of unfinished goods was so anathema to the South. Because its whole entire economy was reliant upon the cheap production of staple, unrefined good by using chattel slavery. The tariffs wouldn't have mattered if the South's economy wasn't constructed the way it was. So yes, slavery, as the cornerstone of their economic system, WAS the cause of the war.

For example, the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery only in territory True, but most people who say this are missing the larger point; Lincoln's war powers didn't extend to states that weren't in rebellion. As it was, most states in the north had banned slavery, and most of the border states had either minuscule populations, or were on their way to banning it.

Finally, there were black slave owners in norther states who owned slaves and contracted them out to households and businesses during the day and fed and housed them at night. Well presuming that they were in a state where slavery was legal, most black slave owners owned their families or purchased fellow slaves in order to wrest them from . It was notoriously hard in many Southern states to grant manumission, and in some, manumission had been totally banned. The only way for a free black who happened to be manumitted to retrieve his family was to pay for it.

That said,there WERE black slave owners, here, and even in Haiti, that exploited their fellow blacks. I can't think of any ethnicity that doesn't have some sort of hierarchical relationship within it. But their prescence was bordering on statistically irrelevant. It also doesn't absolve white people of slavery that a handful of blacks also engaged in it; many racially tinged purges, genocides, and enslavements have been assisted by "helpful" or "good" members of a targeted ethnicity. The fact, for instance, that kapos existed in Nazi concentration camps doesn't absolve the Germans of their crimes.

And, NO southern ship hauled any slave This is blatantly untrue, and can be proven by something as simple as consulting statistics on slave importation and seeing who did so. While I don't have it on hand, I can refer you to "Final Victims" by that documents the last 20 years of the Atlantic slave trade before it was finally banned. I can assure that slave traders can from all over the Eastern seaboard, and dealt in significant quantities. Charleston alone imported 91,000 slaves alone from 1706 to 1775. And it was the BUSIEST port by far. (source: Slave Sales in Colonial Charleston Kenneth Morgan The English Historical Review, Vol. 113, No. 453 (Sep., 1998), pp. 905-927).

"How does the revisionists history writers square the northern riots against blacks after The War because they were taking their jobs?" The same way they square the systematic violence and discrimination of blacks in the South; racism was ever present everywhere in America, both, north, south, east and west. What the north did have, though they had prejudiced racist views, was a hatred towards slavery, for a variety of reasons, from religious to economic to social. Again the fact that the North wasn;t a bastion of racial enlightenment doesn't get the South off the hook.

Your assertions and ridiculous statements are blown apart by people who have actually done research, and by the me, and others who have written and edited articles on the civil war. Now, if you don't mind, have actual research and writing to be done on other civil war articles. SiberioS (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to dig a little deeper when you go back to your research. Look beyond your high school texts. The "Civil War" has been taught from a northern perspective since the war ended.

It kind of reminds me of the end of the Super Bowl. All the reporters rush up to the winning team and get their story. Then, they kick it over to the other team for a couple of minutes and then back to the winners for more of their story.

Ask yourself this question when you are doing your "research". Why would the "civil war" be fought over a single issue (slavery) when the majority of southerners did not own slaves? There must of been other reasons.

It's true that most Southerners owned no slaves. So why would the poor fight for the rich? Because plantation owners went out of their way to win the support of poor Southerners by (sometimes) lending the use of their cotton gins, lending money and encouraging regional and racial solidarity among Southern whites. Poor Southerners were told that slavery created social equality among Southern whites. Also, fears of racial equality were greater in the South because 95% of blacks lived in the South.

Also, high school history books were written from the Southern point of view for many years, and some still are.

Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, actually, looked "beyond" highschool textbooks. I have in fact, read dozens of books, from scholarly sources, about slavery and the American Civil War. I have read dozens of journal articles. I was the person who mostly rewrote the Military history of African American's in the U.S. Civil War, and also rewrote completely Confederate railroads in the American Civil War, as well as doing significant rewrites of Economy of the Confederate States of America. My record, as indicated by the reference lists in those articles, stands for itself. I already responded to your ridiculous assertions, and I don't feel inclined to give them anymore of my time. SiberioS (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did not respond to my assertions I did not write the top article. High School text are not written from the Southern point of view. I cannot believe you just wrote that. You have got to be kidding. Where did you go to high school?It must not have been on this planet. If high school texts were written from the Southern point of view, why is ther no mention of Black Confederate troops, Native American Confederate troops, Hispanic Confederate troops, Jewish Cionfederate troops? The lack of fair teachings of this war has led to ignorance both North and South to this day. For example, people see a Confederate battle flag and think KKK and hate when the majority of people displaying the flag can't stand groups like the KKK. We need to teach both sides fairly and honor both sides and all people involved in the war regardless of race, religion etc. need to be honored as well.

Your statement of poor Southerners being told that slavery created social equality holds little reason poor Southerners would fight for the Confederacy. Many poor Southerners did not care one way or the other about slavery. Most Southerners fought for their state and their home. That's all they had.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.146.218 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it holds a great reason why. Most people who didn't own slaves were either petit-bougeroise (such as doctors, lawyers, and other professionals) who aided its working, or were yeoman farmers whom provided the food stuff and other crop essentials necessary to running a large plantation that is dedicated to unedible cash crops. Even what industry there was in the South was characterized by the use of industrial slavery and bonded slaves from local plantations. Point is, without a system of chattel slavery the whole entire system that funded both plantation owner and small farmer alike would come collapsing down with the unleashing of millions of african american's into the free labor force and the possibility of new farm competition.

And considering I wrote the article that describes the discussion over possibly allowing blacks into Confederate ranks, yes, I DO know about them. And hardly any of them were raised before the collapse of the Confederacy, and as it was, it still required manumission from slave owners. A slave couldn't just freely join. As for all the other ethnicities you've listed, again, the things that differentiates them from their northern equivalents is their opinion on slavery. Slave holding Indian tribes generally sided with the Confederacy and Cuban's sought to aid the Confederacy because of their own fears about the end of slavery in their own country.

So yes, I HAVE answered your assertions, here, and in the articles themselves. Until you provide actual scholarly sources that assert (and don't go mining for internet quotes) that the economy and political system of the South was not reliant upon chattel slavery, all the articles as they are. SiberioS (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean troops like this one?

Sf46 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again not taught in school. Would be great to teach to combat organizations such as the KKK and neo nazis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.165.33 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres actually a great book put out by the Unviersity of South Carolina Press called The Jewish Confederates by Robert Rosen. Its a good analysis of their position, status, and ideological affinity during the Civil War. Like all things, its more nuanced than most people realize. SiberioS (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, "It's true that most Southerners owned no slaves." But how many of these non-slave owners were participants in the "Secession conventions"? I once read a statistic that only about 780 men (those who voted for secession in the various state conventions) were responsible for the southern states "leaving" the Union. In fact, in North Carolina, the popular vote was for remaining in the Union by about 400 votes. It was the governor of that state (Vance?) who ignored the vote and took North Carolina out. The arguments on this discussion page have been argued to death around campfires at reenactments across the country. All it takes is common sense to see through the "Lost Cause" defense. When one person at a campfire argued that most southerners were poor and didn't own slaves so the South didn't leave the Union for that reason, a 14-year-old boy simply asked, "And how many of those poor southern farmers were in the state legislatures?" Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

General Cleburne's 1864 letter has proven to be very prophetic "...our youth will...learn from Northern school books their version of the war;...to regard our gallant dead as traitors...It is said slavery is all we are fighting for,...which we deny...It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority..." Sf46 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil war nd Darfur

I'm wondering whether u consider Lincoln as the new bachir, of sudan? it's a rebellion there also? --Stayfi (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

commanders

why there only 2 for each side?--Jakezing (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly for ease of reading, I suspect. The top commander is the elected President of each side, while the bottom is the primary military leader of the army for each side. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

and yet ignores all those other ones we had, and they, had.--Jakezing (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Star of The West

I'm not sure how this figures in, but there are some claims that the first shots of the Civil War were not the bombardment of Fort Sumter, but the firing on the Star of The West by Citadel Cadets on Jan. 9, 1861. The ships failed attempt to reach Fort Sumter is mentioned in this wiki, but I think the importance of it being fired on prior to the April attack on Fort Sumpter is not properly stated. --205.242.12.130 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Reason for the war (main?)

I read that the civil war was more about handing more power to the federal government than to the states. The fight from a confederate form of government (state sovereignty) to a central government with state power being the lesser. Also that slavery was just used as a promotional tool to gain favor for the federal movement.

My question is: does this have any truth to it? I did not read the whole civil war wikipedia entry as I figured it would be stated as a secondary warrant for the civil war. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.64.129 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The same people who organized secession demanded a Federal slave code for the territories (indeed, they split from the Democratic party rather than nominate Stephen Douglas because he opposed one); they had demanded and enforced Federal legislation on fugitive slaves. That is not a pristine states' right position; as often, questions of constitutional authority only became political issues when they covered a substantive economic interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a general believer that a materialist outlook, more often than not (though with notable exceptions) explains the impulses of individuals as far as their political positions go. I think this is why so many Lost Cause supporters have a problem with the North detesting slavery without necessarily being a beacon of racial integration and harmony; they fail to see the clear economic basis for the disdain of slavery, both from Northern industrialists (who feared slave competition) as well as from working class roots (many early trade and craft unions viewed an emboldened slave power as a writing on the wall for themselves; many feared that enslavement of white industrial workers was not far behind) that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person individually liked or disliked African American's as a social group.

In the Confederacy, as I explained above, this concern over economic status is reflected not in class divisions (which were already apparent in the industrial North) but in racial groups. Similar to many other secessionist and nationalist movements, the unit to be promoted is a pan-whatever group (be it pan-white, pan-Arab, pan-African etc), that overlooks or argues away class differences in place of a larger group solidarity. It is also these class antagonisms that often lead to a collapse in such a movement. SiberioS (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

a materialist outlook, more often than not (though with notable exceptions) explains the impulses of individuals as far as their political positions go. I think this is why so many states' rights deniers have a problem with the South embracing slavery without necessarily being a beacon of racial hatred and ill-will; they fail to see the clear economic basis for the embrace of slavery, both from Southern plantationists (who feared industrial competition) as well as from working class roots (many early trade and craft unions viewed emancipation as providing competition for their jobs) that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person individually liked or disliked African Americans as a social group.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Casualties

I think the casaulties section may be somewhat erroneous. The North and South, militarily, suffered relatively similar losses, but the South was occupied and convincingly devastated by the Northern Armies, whereas the North was somewhat untouched, apart from Early and Lee's incursions. As such, the total casualty figure seems unlikely to have been 360,000 on the Northern side compared to a mere 258,000 on the Southern side, unless you exclude civilian deaths. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the number of dead as a metric for several reasons. First, disease was the worst enemy for both; it killed with less discretion and was primarily a function of numbers (larger army means more succumbing to disease.) Second, CSA reporting of casualties was rather spotty compared to the Union. And in some theaters there were many lost who were never recorded (see the battles in Missouri and Arkansas for example.) I've seen various acknowledgment by historians that the CSA wounded were greatly underreported. Despite this, in the end KIA are approximately equivalent. In various areas of the border states Unionist civilians suffered as much as their Southern counterparts as the result of campaigns by both armies and guerrillas. Even the most famous examples of devastation by northern armies (Atlanta, the Shenandoah) were aimed at property, not civilian lives (something that is largely misunderstood or misrepresented in popular culture.) Red Harvest (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Union territories that permitted slavery

In the map of the US that shows the different colors of states and territories where slavery was permitted during the war by the Union, I believe it is leaving out New Orleans, Louisiana and surrounding parishes which were permitted to maintain slavery and were firmly occupied by the Federals throughout the war.24.105.236.66 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article?

In the introduction to the article titled "American civil war" it states, “In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union”. This implies that the southern states seceded due to the intent of the north to free the slaves. This may be inaccurate, I quote Lincoln’s first inaugural address of March 1861, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” (cited in Zinn 2003). Lincoln and the Republican Party did campaign against legal slavery in new states but at the cost of the fugitive slave laws in which runaway slaves escaping to the north could be detained and returned to their masters. In Abraham Lincolns 1858 campaign for the senate he gave two public speeches in northern and southern Illinois. In the first he talks of equality and unity of man. In the second he is against votes for the black man, interracial marriage and social equality, he comments on the superiority of the white race and the necessity of slavery. This suggests that his primary interest was in furthering his political career rather than abolition of slavery.

Further to this a resolution passed in congress in 1861 after the start of the war stated, “this war is not waged…for any purpose of…overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those states, but…to preserve the union”(cited in Zinn 2003). Lincoln and the union made it clear that they had no intention of ending slavery.

There were gradual moves toward ending slavery after the war started but they were small and motivated primarily toward winning the war. The Confiscation act was the first such act stating slaves that choose to fight for the union would be freed; this was largely ignored by the union generals. When this was commented on by Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune Lincoln's reply stated “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.”(cited in Zinn 2003). This initial introduction makes no mention of the actual reason for the south’s secession and the start of the war. Mainly differences in economic policy and interests, slavery merely a side issue at best.

The introduction of the article also states “In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal”. The emancipation proclamation was issued in January 1863, promising freedom to the slaves of the confederate states, the union states that maintained slavery were left out of the proclamation. The end of slavery was bought about in January 1865, four years after the start of the war. This in part due to the despite situation the union was in and political pressure from abolitionists.

This is just the introduction, the theme of the abolition of slavery as the root cause of war continues throughout, the evidence provided seems largely circumstantial. I suggest that in this one respect this article is bias and misleading. The civil war ultimately ended legal slavery in the United States, this is undeniable. The point is that the true hero’s behind the abolition of slavery are totally ignored and the cause of the war is falsely made out to be simply due to differences in opinion on policy toward slavery.

Bibliography H, Zinn(2003)A peoples History of the United States - Volume 2. Published by The New Press, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humannumber2587495748 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Slavery was not a "side issue", and your argument that it was about "economic differences" hides the reason why there WERE economic differences. Namely, that one half of the country ran off of chattel slavery that allowed for the growing of large amounts of inedible cash crops, and the other half ran off "Free labor". Even the tariff, which hurt the marketability of raw crops abroad, was only relevant because of the way the South ran its economy. There is no doubt that the South could not have the "economic issues" it had without chattel slavery.

But this is no here no there. We've gone through these same issues a million times before in this article's discussion page, and were not going through it again. While I myself would like to see the focus put more on the pressure groups and abolitionists who forced Lincoln's hand on the issue, which would serve to shift the article away from the kind of "Great Men of History" mold that it has, as it stands the article is mostly correct. And it is certainly correct when it comes to the assessment of the Civil War being about slavery. SiberioS (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Siberio, I gotta say once again that your statement "...And it is certainly correct when it comes to the assessment of the Civil War being about slavery" is correct from a politically correct revisionist historian point of view, but from reality it's a pipe dream. Just my two cents. Sf46 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Secessionists complained quite a bit about Lincoln's House Divided speech.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sf46 repeats the common Southern revisionist/apologist tactic of casting everyone but his own narrow POV as "politically correct revisionist historian(s)." Unfortunately, reality is the reverse of what he contends. And if one reads what Southerners were saying in 1860 and 1861 versus their revisions in 1866 it becomes apparent where the real warping of reality has occurred: Southern revisionist history. I made note of this today while considering a captured flag emblazoned with "Southern Rights"...not "States Rights". It was carried by Missourians against Missourians in 1861. It could have said, "Missouri Rights" casting the issue as one of Missouri vs. the Federal govt. (although the men they opposed were every bit as local as them and weren't in Federal service.) Tariffs were not at issue that far north, so that left slavery as the bone of contention. What afterall was the defining characteristic of Southern culture that set it apart from others in the nation at the time? Slavery. Red Harvest (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll care about your "Two cents" when you contribute more than two bytes to any actual article. My contribution history speaks for itself; almost the totality of Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War, a complete rewrite of Confederate railroads in the American Civil War, significant, albeit uncompleted revisions, of Economy of the Confederate States of America, as well as smaller revisions of bits and pieces of the Confederate States of America article. Despite caterwauling from Sf46, and a cadre of other people, none of them have edited significantly any Civil War article. The proportion of talk on discussion pages far outweights any actual editing in articles. SiberioS (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was about power, and because slavery could be morally argued that, in the end, is what they latched on to so that emotions could be brought into such an important argument. Don't be fooled into believing that the entire civil war was started because northerners thought it was cruel and unusual to own other humans. Political agendas have never operated that way. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a line drawn from slavery as the method of power and economical growth and slavery the idea. The primary purposes WERE economy and power, and slaves were used to make those gains in the south. They could have shut down cotton and tobacco exports but that wouldn't make any sense. This was not a crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Siberio may be a bit biased when it comes to African Americans and therefore would like the Civil War to be seen as some trophy to the black community (it was a huge step for them, but come on). I know you'd like to make the Civil War into some epiphany that the government had about treating blacks cruel, but the time periods after the Civil War show that treating minorities in any way but crap was the way to go, and that includes the north. Read The Jungle and you tell me if the north was some Civil Rights hubub. Also, trying to claim that you've added a bunch of information to Wikipedia means that you have a ridiculous amount of free time on your hands, not that you are a professional on the topic. I'd take that guys two cents over yours any day because caring enough to add something, but only having time to add two bytes means you have a job. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a job AND I'm going to school to get my MSW AND I also volunteer at a free clinic on the side. So yes, actually, my schedule is extremely busy, which is one of the reasons why I haven't updated more in recent months. But even if that wasn't true, I still wouldn't have to answer to some drive by anonymous commenter whose best criticism is that anything on Wikipedia is wrong because its written by people with too much "Free time", and therefore nothing on it can be right. Brilliance! SiberioS (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, another attack by an anonymous poster with Southern revisionist agenda. The mixed motives of the North boil down to an "average" in that they had no interest in allowing the expansion of slavery. (Some for moral/religious reasons, some for economic, some for political reasons, etc.) Many Southern revisionists seem to have the horribly misguided idea that one side must be painted as villain and the other as hero based upon today's morals. This is the trap that they almost universally fall into. The routine works as follows: 1. Slavery is bad (today's morality). 2. Therefore, Southerners and their leaders would not have gone to war to protect such an evil. 3. Therefore it must be money grubbers/etc. in the North trying to create a colonial South that instigated a war and/or it was a noble argument over vague States Rights vs. Federal authority. This then results in focusing their venom on the North under the misguided premises (often conflicting with one another)--anything to ignore the elephant in the living room. If one actually reads why Southerners themselves proposed leaving the United States (and with force) in the lead up to war, then you would be far less confused. Instead, you've fallen for post war spin. Red Harvest (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original post in this section: There are some massive errors of fact in that post such as "The emancipation proclamation was issued in January 1863". Sorry to disappoint but that was when it became effective, not when it was issued. Throughout the errant post we see the traditional Southern revisionist themes: Pay no mind to what Southern interests were professing and agitating for. Instead, try to refute the war was over slavery by looking at the North and its leaders. Unfortunately for that line of reasoning, the North did NOT go to war to end slavery (and that is not what mainstream folks are contending happened) so you are taking shots at a target that doesn't exist to make a point that is not relevant. The North didn't instigate the war, the South did--look at the timelines and actions and it is readily apparent, just as stated in the article. There was war because the North did not back down completely about the matter of United States authority in the face of Southern ultimatums. Look to the South for an explanation of why it's leadership chose secession and war, they readily explained it at the time. Red Harvest (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the emancipation proclamation became effective in January 1863 is totally irrelivant to the argument. My argument is that the article in question suggests that the root cause of the war was the abolition of slavery. THIS is erroneous and undeniable, please state some evidence that the war aims were to end slavery all other arguments are totally irrellivant. As all people know even after the war black peoples were more or less reduced to slavery for the next 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.158.16 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the article says or suggests. You are continuing the same flawed strawman argument that gets repeated ad nauseum. Abolition was not the primary war aim of the North and the article does not suggest that it was. The article in fact quotes Southern leaders with regard to their reasoning and in summary it is one of slave rights and feared or suspected impositions on the right to keep slaves and advance slavery into other states and territories. The South did fear eventual abolition. The secession crisis arose from Lincoln's stated intent to prevent slavery in the territories. My suggestion is to reread the article. Red Harvest (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just read the whole article don't really understand where red harvest is coming from the article clearly makes out that abolition was the primary aim of the north i would suggest you might want to re read it yourself. Lincoln was not a great man as he is so often painted he was a monster, he didn't care about the abolition of slavery yet histories so often give him the credit for it which is vastly misleading, i think this is one of the main points being made in fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.61.125 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does state both that Lincoln was not trying to abolish slavery in states where it existed (at least before the war) and that he was attempting to prevent any expansion of slavery with the hope that doing so would put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction." Most people don't think that this makes Lincoln a monster.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Games ? Why Games ?

Why are Civil War Games listed in this article ? What's fun about 600,000 to 900,000 deaths ? Should we include G.I.Joe Dolls on the WW2 Article ?Bill Ladd (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good observation. I think the inclusion of games in this article cheapens it. If not, then maybe someone should include WW II games in the Holocaust article. Or maybe add the old "Leisure Suit Larry" seduction games in an article on relationships, etc. And I say this despite growing up in Maryland back in the 60s playing the Avalon Hill war games on the Civil War and other wars. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of those who had worked on the games section, I have to say that I strongly disagree with the two of you, and resent the fact that games were removed after two people out of who knows how many contributors raised very subjective objections. Several months ago, there was a section about the Civil War in popular culture that included movies and T.V. It made perfect sense to include games there, since they, too, are a part of popular culture. To think that they make light of the death and suffering shows a complete lack of understand or appreciation for what games like these mean to players. Did you know that many people who had ancestors fighting in the Civil War buy and play these games? Did you know that these games, many of which pay scrupulous attention to detail, are a way for people to learn about the Civil War? That it's one of the ways that the older generation teaches the younger generation about those who fought in it and the types of strategic and tactical decisions the politicians and generals had to make? More to the point, did you know that Civil War games are on sale at gift shops at Civil War battlefields -- the same battlefields that do not allow reenactors to stage mock battles on their grounds because it would be disrespectful? If the Park Service employees charged with protecting the memories of those battles don't object to the sale of games, who are the self-appointed editors of Wikipedia to do so? To completely remove even a link to other pages about Civil War games simply demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how important these games are to people who take the Civil War every bit as seriously as those editing this page, when Wikipedia is supposed to be about open-mindedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1970 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti War Riots

dont we need to add info on anti war movements and riots ? Articles exist under different names including the NY Draft Riots.Bill Ladd (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?

Shouldn't the Civil War be considered a Union Pyrrhic Victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Pyrrhic victories are used to describe battles, not wars, for a Pyrrhic victory is a victory won at such a cost that it affects future battles and campaigns in a negative way. A war can not be a Pyrrhic victory by the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory. There were certainly many Pyrrhic victories for the Union during the war, but the war itself was not a Pyrrhic victory. Even if that term could be used, I'm not sure that this would fit into the definition. A Pyrrhic victory has to be more than just losing more than the defeated. It has to affect, if we think about in terms of a Pyrrhic victory of a war, it's future wars in a negative away. Either way, the term doesn't apply here.ShaneMarsh (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Forgive the spelling corrections above. I just can't help myself.) Perhaps you meant Confederate Pyrrhic victories. Since the Union handily won the war, no victorious battle could be accompanied by such a serious loss that it posed a threat to the eventual outcome. The Confederates -- Robert E. Lee's Army in particular -- won a number of tactical victories that cost disproportionately large casualties on their side, losses that could not be borne over a long war. Every once in a while some editor attempts to put the adjective Pyrrhic on the battle summary in the information box for a Civil War battle, but since there were so many of these it really dilutes the meaning of the term, so we don't use it on any of the battles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I meant Union. ;) A Phyrrhic victory can also stall a campaign, and the Union had multiple battles like that.ShaneMarsh (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Civil War

Hello, I have a question if everyone doesnt mind. I have heard and read a great deal about a "second civil war" in america if Barack Obama is elected, I am not from this country originally (I am an exchange student studying at university) and I was wondering if these comments are serious--will there actually be some sort of strifeafter this election. I am sure these comments are being made tongue-in-cheek, so to say, but I am from a part of the world where civil wars really do break out as a result of elections. Thanks for your help. --130.108.197.145 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Very unlikely, realistically speaking.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. The country was much more divided in 2004 when it comes to politics and the choices given. I haven't heard from any real people about so much as a chance of anything that severe happening.ShaneMarsh (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the lead too long?

At five paragraphs I think the intro could be a bit tighter. Would anyone object if the two paragraphs describing the war were shortened to one paragraph as follows:

Hostilities began on April 12 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states. The Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, which complicated the Confederacy's manpower shortage. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's loss at Gettysburg in July 1863 proved the turning point. In 1864 Ulysses S. Grant fought battles of attrition against Lee that ended with the Siege of Petersburg. Union general William Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia, and began his March to the Sea, devastating a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long. Your changes look good, generally. I'd include splitting the CSA via capture of the Mississippi. The overall relevance of Petersburg is not apparent - I would not have included it. --JimWae (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A worthy goal. There are also several points carried over from the prior article that might be improved. Here are some changes to consider (italicized), adding back in Vicksburg (for East/West balance):

The Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, exacerbating the Confederacy's manpower shortage. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's loss at Gettysburg as well as the fall of Vicksburg in July 1863 proved to be turning points. Red Harvest (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Good points.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice improvement. The final paragraph contains an error, since the war DID NOT end slavery in the U.S. Slavery was ended by ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865. Could one of you (Jimmuldrow?) make this correction? I seem unable to edit this page.Tglacour (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

People at the time and historians ever since consider the 13th amendment to be a war measure, not something outside the war.Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased Terminology

The long-standing (mis?)use of the term "Civil War" to describe the 1861-1865 conflict should be addressed in the opening paragraph. The term has never been accepted by Southerners, since in their view a "civil war" implies an attempt to forcibly gain control of the nation, whereas they were conducting a War of Independence or Revolutionary War.

If "civil war" is applied here because Webster's dictionary defines the term as a "war between citizens of the same country", or because it satisfies Wikipedia's definition as "a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state", then the "American Revolutionary War" should in fact be called The First American Civil War. However, the latter is called the "Revolutionary War" only because it succeeded and the terminology was perpetuated by "the winner." The pro-Union bias inherent in the labeling of the 1861-1865 conflict as "American Civil War" should be made clear. "War Between the States" should be preferred because the term is more descriptive, accurate, and includes no bias.Tglacour (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

hi i am here because i am doing a report on the civil war can you guys help me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.166.203 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 

Correction

{{editsemiprotected}} The Stars and Bars should be the flag of the Confederacy in this article Tppl 0246 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Stars and Bars should be used as the official flag of the Confederacy. The "Stainless Banner" is their Battle Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlzimmerman (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question and I don't see an easy answer. Which flag should be used? The CSA had several national flags (not just three). Much like Southern states today they changed flags as often as some people change socks. The flag adopted in 1865 is shown in the info box. The original stars and bars had only seven stars and eventually rose to 13. Then there was the "stainless banner" for most of the second half of the war. It isn't at all clear to me what the CSA itself would have chosen in reflection given the opportunity. The Union portion of the infobox uses a 34 star flag (includes Kansas before the start of the war) although West Virginia and New Mexico were admitted before the end of the war. It might make sense to use the stars and bars with 13 stars vs. the 34 stars of the United states flag at the beginning of the war. Afterall, we are left with a snapshot unless someone makes to make animated gifs for both. Red Harvest (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone else has a favorite flag, let us know. Three Confederate flags (the Stars and Bars, the Stainless Banner and the Blood Stained Banner flags) are as follows:

Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Or we could show all three flags by reducing the sizeJimmuldrow (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what flag would work best. For consistency sake near the start of the conflict I would opt for using an early war flag (as with the Union) and my initial suggestion was to use 13 stars...but then I found the following site http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/us-csa1.html#starno which says that 40% of the 300 surviving stars and bars have only 11 stars, making 11 the most common number, with many other numbers. There isn't a correct answer per se, but a whole host of possibilities. I would like to see some comments/discussion about why one or the other would be approriate so that a consensus can emerge. Red Harvest (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Edit to semiprotected page not done for now: consensus has not yet been achieved.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two votes, both for the Stars and Bars.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong flag

The flag of Spain is currently shown as the confederacy flag...must be a mistake. Can someone fix?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.93.138 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Used the last official flag.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was done by this user: [1] - he seems to have done a lot of trolling (in other pages too). can someone ban him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.93.138 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary

the opening summary should mention diplomacy and long-term factors, so I added them and dropped a minor reference to nullification (the issue was secession). Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

American Civil War

I have been trying to find the BBC 2 sreies shown in the 90s, to download, buy, or steal ! lol, can anyone tell me how to do it please, Regards. Rex Barley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitywheat (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, could we try to keep the lede from getting too long?

It's long enough as is, imo.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will shorten it but we have to keep the main events of 1862. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I reverted the following:

Why I reverted the following:

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states seceded from the U.S. and formed a new country, the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, it fought against the U.S. (the "Union"), that is, all the free states and the five border slave states.

1. Saying they "seceded" is POV. Saying they did not secede is POV. Instead, say neither
2. Saying they formed a new counttry is POV. Saying they did not is POV. Instead, say neither.
3. Saying the US was just the free states & + 5 border states is POV. Saying the US was all states is POV. Instead, say neither

More like this:

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the U.S. federal government (the "Union"), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.

--JimWae (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK but the CSA fought against the USA, not merely the federal government. (All the northern states actively played a role.) Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dropped another few hundred words by removing small points esp in footnotes that belong in the state articles, not in this general overview.Rjensen (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying "the US comprised all the free states and the five border states" has same POV problem - PLUS it is false/misleading that 11 declared secession upon election - and false that the Republican party elected Lincoln as president --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

it's false to say the CSA fought the US federal government. How to phrase the Union is an open question--what do people suggest? It is true that the Republican party elected Lincoln. He was elected by presidential electors & all his electors were chosen by the Republican party, which organized and turned out the people who voted for him. The usual way of phrasing this is "the Republican party elected Lincoln as president" Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare

Compare

On the eastern front a series of battles left the Union forces frustrated as they failed repeatedly to capture Richmond.

with

On the eastern front, Union forces repeatedly failed to capture the Confederate capital at Richmond.

Which gives more information in fewer words? Which is more appropraite for the lede? --JimWae (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

too long

one way to keep the article from getting too long is to drop unnecessary, tedious quotes (some of them based on OR and not part of the usual expert literature) that add very little. Example of OR: a 1864 obscure quote from "Southern Punch" on attitudes in 1864 is poor evidence for attitudes in 1861. So I chopped them out, along with poor sources (Shelby Foote is good on battles but does not pretend to be an expert on politics.) Likewise long-winded 1830 quotes from Calhoun on a a different subject fit in poorly here. He has his own article. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing references doesn't reduce the amount of words that show, and is a poor way to reduce article size. Also, Wikipedia doesn't define primary sources as "original research." Original research is an original synthesis of other ideas that results in some new combination, whether from primary sources or not. Also, Foote and the primary sources are completely consistent with what all the major historians have to say. Also, you wiped out a parenthesis that should be there.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson

Is it worthy mentioning his death at Chancellorsville? After all Lee was quoted as saying he had "lost his right arm" and was "bleeding at heart." Soxwon (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

The information box on the right side says that the union won a Pyrrhic victory. This was a term unfamiliar to me until I clicked on the wikilink and discovered that it is a victory by an army which wins the battle and looses less soldiers killed, but in turn loses a higher percentage of its forces than its enemy. I can see why it was added, but I think the term is not being used correctly in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It probably was not quite correct, as there was no surprise to the fact that the Union army, playing the offensive role most of the time, would have the higher casualty rate. I thought a pyrrhic victory was almost like a defeat, which would be inaccurate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the general idea is that it's a victory whose price was so high, you question its value. "you're the last man standing and all for what?" kinda thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedwyn (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gettysburg and the election of 1864

A recent edit claims that Gettysburg ensured Lincoln's victory in the 19864 election. Lincoln actually thought he'd lose the election, and wrote a note of advice to the Democrat McClellan when he thought that McClellan would be the next President. It was Sherman's capture of Atlanta and the support of Union soldiers that helped Lincoln win the election.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit claiming the South was a separate country

This article tries to avoid accepting either the North's point of view (that the South was in rebellion) or the South's point of view (that the South was a separate country). To do otherwise would violate Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. Also, several border states voted for emancipation before December of 1865, contrary to what the edit says.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

State's Rights Issue Missing from Article

Seems this article is making the sole assumption that slavery was the whole cause of the war and secession. People seem to not know, or refuse to acknowledge the Corwin Amendment to amend the US Constitution, which mind you has no expiration and valid for a state who has not yet vote, to ratify it. This Amendment is not even brought up in this article. This was an Amendment that Lincoln fully supported.

If the issue was solely slavery, then this Amendment would have solved the issue of slavery and the south would not of had anything to worrry about, thus ending the secession all together. (Trentc (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

the issuse was secession and Union. No expert says the seven Confederate states would return under any conditions. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention the Corwin Amendment and states' rights. Also, read the FAQ near the top of this discussion page for more details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Life Civil War

Google Images and Life have released a set of images relating to the civil war. Although they have a watermark in the bottom right, they are all public domain (being previously published in life before 1923) and very useful additions. If there any you think will be useful for this article upload to the commons. gren グレン 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwean flag

The Confederate flag has been replaced with the Zimbabwean. Somebody please revert it. AttishOculus (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noted a little too late that the page's only semi-protected, so I should've done it myself. Sorry about that. AttishOculus (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloodiest battle

Both the battle of Antietam and the Battle of Gettysburg are described as the "bloodiest". Which is it? 165.206.43.5 (talk)

Antietam was the single, most bloodiest day in battle. Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle cumulatively (highest casualties total) as it was fought over three days.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretations

Template:RFChist for lack of a better word...

i think the following passages/citations are problematic with regards to neutrality/accuracy/sourcing:

Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[101] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

the bolded portion is a total non-sequitur, for starters. the actual context of the Lincoln quote is from his second inaugural address:

These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow the cause of the war.

beyond the difference between "slavery" (as attributed) and the "powerful interest" represented by the slaves, here is the definition of "somehow":

Main Entry: some·how Pronunciation: \ˈsəm-ˌhau̇\ Function: adverb Date: 1664

in one way or another not known or designated : by some means <we'll manage somehow>

i.e., even that statement from Lincoln casts slavery as peripheral.

Stephens, background

the article quotes him thusly:

"Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"

If you read his cornerstone speech, the phrase "the cornerstone of the confederacy" doesn't appear at all. So it should not be in quotes attributed to Stephens, especially without citation. A very close phrase, though, does appear in the words of George McDuffie of South Carolina:

“Domestic slavery, therefore, instead of being a political evil, is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.”

but he was talking about the United States, not the Confederacy

the citation needs help Cedwyn (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stephens, First issue

Here's a quote that would support saying the CSA's "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth... that slavery... is his (the negro's) natural and normal condition"

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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."

Notice the ...that...that parallellism - and yes, the article does need to be more exact in its usage of quotes here --JimWae (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) So it's not completely out of context to abridge that to:

its "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon... slavery"

"its corner-stone rests upon... slavery"

that's interpretation, or as jensen would say, "original research." if interpreting these words ourselves is not valid for wikipedia articles, that abridgement of the text should not stand.

in any event, my main point there is that in the AWC article, it says this;

Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"

if the exact words "cornerstone of the Confederacy" do not appear in Stephens' speech (the citation provided), it CANNOT stand as a quote, no matter how well one feels the notion is supported by inference. "cornerstone of the Confederacy" does not appear anywhere in Stephens' cornerstone speech.

So his cornerstone speech cannot be the citation for that quote. We need to either find a source where Stephens uses the phrase "cornerstone of the Confederacy" or remove that "quote" from the article. Or rewrite that portion of the article. Or something. But "cornerstone of the Confederacy" is not to be found in his cornerstone speech and the quote should not stand until it is properly sourced.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

A republic founded on inequality of races need not employ slavery - it could enforce segregation in other ways, such as deportation or apartheid or annihilation. The ante-bellum plantations were built on a foundation of slavery - not just inequality. --JimWae (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

exactly - "a republic founded on inequality of the races." that quote "need not employ slavery" kinda proves my point - slavery is secondary to the notion of racial inequality. all the rest of it says is that slavery was the foundation of antebellum plantations, which no one would dispute.

Cedwyn (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

George McDuffie's 1836 use of republic is not clear - he also uses the term state later on & could very well have meant just SC - --JimWae (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

we're talking about direct quotes, though, and McDuffie is on record as saying "slavery...is the cornerstone of our republican edifice." That McDuffie may have used other phrasings at other times does not change that quote at that time.

But Stephens is not on record using the phrase "cornerstone of the Confederacy." Unless/until that gets a source citation, it should not stand, certainly not in quotation marks.

Cedwyn (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The way you format & sign (or sometimes don't) makes it very difficult for others to respond in-line w/o making it impossible to tell who said what --JimWae (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know how to make things nice and pretty.

: (

Cedwyn (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

So slavery isn't "its cornerstone", slavery (and racial inequality) is what its cornerstone rests upon AND upon which its foundations are laid --JimWae (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not saying that slavery is a foundation. the foundation is the idea that the races are not equal. from that foundation, it follows that because blacks are inferior, their natural place is subordination and slavery. the cornerstone, though, the foundation in his speech, is the inequality of the races. he is making a commentary against "All men are created equal" and citing that as the flaw of the U.S. system.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The meaning is clear, but you're right about the part in quotes being a paraphrase, not a direct quote. That has been changed.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks! yes; the meaning is clear and he does NOT say that slavery is the cornerstone. he says the cornerstone is the idea that the races are not equal. it is very plain from the language that the cornerstone is racial inequality.

the passage either needs to reflect that racial inequality is the cornerstone or be sourced from something other than the cornerstone speech, because he simply did not pit slavery as the cornerstone. the condition of slavery follows from the cornerstone of racial inequality.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

---

You are overlooking the "...that...that..." parallelism. The foundation of the CSA is based on both racial inequality & slavery, not just racial inequlaity (which does not necessarily imply slavery) --JimWae (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Stephens claims (in a specious argument later) that slavery follows from racial inequality (which it certainly does not), but he includes both in the sentence (employing parallel structure) in which he asserts what the foundation of the CSA rests upon --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm not overlooking the parallelism. it is NOT both. you've already agreed that the parallelism is interpretation and not valid for assertion. that it might be inferred that he meant slavery does not mean he said slavery.

in the cornerstone speech itself, he lays down that slavery follows the cornerstone assumption that the races are not equal. the cornerstone, the foundation, is the racial inequality. even the comments you just made support this - "which does not necessarily imply slavery" and "slavery follows from racial inequality." Stephens' cornerstone speech is very clear that racial inequality is the cornerstone.

Can you cite an analytical work asserting that he meant slavery? Did you read my replies to your earlier comments?

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

---

Stephens break

Here's a quote that would support saying the CSA's "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth... that slavery... is his (the negro's) natural and normal condition"

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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."

Notice the ...that...that parallellism - and yes, the article does need to be more exact in its usage of quotes here --JimWae (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) So it's not completely out of context to abridge that to:

its "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon... slavery"

"its corner-stone rests upon... slavery"

that's interpretation, or as jensen would say, "original research." if interpreting these words ourselves is not valid for wikipedia articles, that abridgement of the text should not stand.

in any event, my main point there is that in the AWC article, it says this;

Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"

if the exact words "cornerstone of the Confederacy" do not appear in Stephens' speech (the citation provided), it CANNOT stand as a quote, no matter how well one feels the notion is supported by inference. "cornerstone of the Confederacy" does not appear anywhere in Stephens' cornerstone speech.

So his cornerstone speech cannot be the citation for that quote. We need to either find a source where Stephens uses the phrase "cornerstone of the Confederacy" or remove that "quote" from the article. Or rewrite that portion of the article. Or something. But "cornerstone of the Confederacy" is not to be found in his cornerstone speech and the quote should not stand until it is properly sourced.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

A republic founded on inequality of races need not employ slavery - it could enforce segregation in other ways, such as deportation or apartheid or annihilation. The ante-bellum plantations were built on a foundation of slavery - not just inequality. --JimWae (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

exactly - "a republic founded on inequality of the races." that quote "need not employ slavery" kinda proves my point - slavery is secondary to the notion of racial inequality. all the rest of it says is that slavery was the foundation of antebellum plantations, which no one would dispute.

Cedwyn (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

George McDuffie's 1836 use of republic is not clear - he also uses the term state later on & could very well have meant just SC - --JimWae (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

we're talking about direct quotes, though, and McDuffie is on record as saying "slavery...is the cornerstone of our republican edifice." That McDuffie may have used other phrasings at other times does not change that quote at that time.

But Stephens is not on record using the phrase "cornerstone of the Confederacy." Unless/until that gets a source citation, it should not stand, certainly not in quotation marks.

Cedwyn (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stephens, Second Issue

the ACW says this:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights, and became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[12]

When you read the reference cited, all it provides is an excerpt from Stephens' A Constitutional View and the text of his cornerstone speech. there is no analysis demonstrating that the views in A Constitutional View are a reversal of the cornerstone speech. if Stampp did an analytical comparison, it's not what's cited at number 12. Merely quoting both texts doesn't quite establish a reversal of position.

Cited sources should prove the contention made without the need for additional analysis/research. In this case, the reader is required to do some “original research” and compare the texts for themselves. If the citation is asserting that Stephens pulled a reversal, the reference cited should make that case - how he had reversed positions, which arguments he changed/abandoned/newly adopted, etc.

for the record, he does mention several states' rights, i.e., non-slavery concerns in his cornerstone speech. this would suggest that A Constitutional View does not represent as grand a reversal as implied. this is especially critical since we have established that slavery is the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" is not attributable to Stephens' writings.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new.

...This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

...Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South...opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice.

Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means...No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stampp's book The Causes of the Civil War contains more than just the text of the speeches. If you disagree with the interpretation, your argument is with Stampp, who was a very good historian. It appears to me that Stampp is correct.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

About what is Stampp correct? Can you point me to the assertion made by Stampp?

Here's the citation:

^ Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, pages 63–65 (A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States) and pages 152-153 (Cornerstone Speech). Stampp contrasted the former (Lost Cause) speech with Stephens' earlier Cornerstone Speech to show that Stephens reversed his opinion on causes.

If you read the pages indicated (63-65 and 152-153) they contain only excerpts of A Constitutional View and the cornerstone speech. The pages cited do not contain any analysis demonstrating how A Constitutional View constitutes a change in opinion/perspective on the part of Stephens. Simply providing the two texts doesn't support the assertion made, which is:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights.

If Stampp conducted a comparative analysis and demonstrated that the rationale in A Constitutional View is divergent from the ideas presented in the cornerstone speech, those pages should be the ones cited, not the texts of Stephens' words. The source should support the claim made. And nothing in the citation source (pg 63-65 and 152-153) illustrates that A Constitutional View is a reversal of the cornerstone speech. Providing the text for readers to compare for themselves does not establish that Stephens changed his story in and of itself. That involves interpretation.

The source provided should support the conclusion drawn, with no additional research/analysis required. i.e., We need a source that breaks down how Stephens' philosophy morphed. Outline. Detail it. Compare and contrast. That would be a source that proves this claim.

And since we've demonstrated that slavery is the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" is not directly attributable to Stephens, I think that calls into question this whole reversal of opinion concept. We need consensus opinion analysis of Stephens' words outlining the change in thought. As it stands, the statement is more "original research" that is not appropriate for wikipedia articles, per the guidelines.

The whole premise is a tad odd, truth be known. His book was titled "A Constitutional View." Is it surprising that it would focus only on the constitutional questions involved and states' rights issues? i.e., if i say that police are the cornerstone of oppression to justify rioting and then years later i write a paper called A Constitutional View on Rioting, it is not necessarily a change in position or argument to then discuss my riot in the context of its constitutional questions and not mention cops.

for the article's assertion to stand, we need consensus view sources that assert:

that stephens was saying slavery, not inequality, is the cornerstone

b) demonstrating how A Constitutional View paper is a reversal of positions stated in the cornerstone speech

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The content of A Constitutional View is also limited because of its format - it's a series of Colloquys, i.e., Stephens was responding to specific questions and topics.

Cedwyn (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Calhoun

the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846,[14] and even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15])

the conclusion in the bolded portion is not supported by its citation.

the tariff of 1828 itself says nothing about slavery.

John Calhoun's Exposition and Protest (direct response to the 1828 tariff) doesn't even contain the word "slavery."

The source referenced (#15) for the claim that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" quotes a John C. Calhoun statement from 1930, two years after the tariff of 1828 and Calhoun's Exposition:

I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things.

Calhoun introduces 3 ideas here:

there exists a present unhappy state

there exists an occasion (marker) of present unhappy state

there also exists a separate, "real cause" of present unhappy state

Reading the rest of his quote, it breaks down like this:

present unhappy state = north/south tensions, trajectory towards dissolution

occasion (marker) of present unhappy state = the 1828 tariff

real cause of present unhappy state = the southern states' agrarian economy threatened by their minority status re: congressional representation

This is not a Calhoun declaration that the tariff issue is all about slavery. The South perceived this tax as bullying by the abolitionist North and a breach of trust by the federal government - they felt that sides were being taken and that their interests (most of the tariff did hit them disproportionately) were not being represented. Calhoun's main point is that the tariff favored the North and its industry at the expense of the South and its farming. The only mention of slavery is tangential:

the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry

i.e., slavery and the fact that the south evolved an agrarian economy with it

has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union

i.e., the southern states are an outnumbered minority as far as economic interests being represented on congressional matters, e.g. tariffs

All he said about slavery in this passage, basically, was that they're in the minority for supporting it. The bigger concern was that the South's minority status in congress made them vulnerable to the whims of the other states regarding a variety of issues, including slavery, tariffs, etc.

In a nutshell, he more or less ranted about tyranny of the majority - that the South (and her agrarian economy) would be forever outnumbered in Congress and would be powerless to stop whatever tariffs and what all else the majority states felt like passing. He was NOT saying that slavery was some "real cause" of the tariff dispute, or whatever "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" is supposed to impute.

peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

over and over again Cedwyn engages in original research. That's allowed on the talk page but not on the main page because it has to rely on experts. I hope people read some of these experts so they can appreciate that thousands of scholars over 140 years have thought about all these issues very seriously and have read many thousands of pages of original sources, not merely a snippet here or there. It is really very difficult to make sense of these original sources without advanced training in history.Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

what "original research" are you talking about? what i wrote about calhoun came from his words and my keyboard. how about addressing the points i've raised? is there some citation indicating "slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy" as a consensus opinion? the article doesn't provide a citation for that quote at all and the citation for the Calhoun statement is naught but the statement itself, as featured in a book, i.e., nothing establishing it as consensus opinion.

Cedwyn (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

it's original research to try to intrerpret Calhoun without reference to the experts. In the case of Calhoun he died long before the war so it's what people at the time made of his ideas that matter. Start with what the historians say his impact was. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

and the citation establishing the consensus opinion that calhoun's letter means the tariff dispute was about slavery is where?

Cedwyn (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

it's here, for those who are seriously interested--start reading! LK Ford, "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society: The Political Economy of John C. Calhoun" in Journal of Southern History, 1988; JL Thomas, John C. Calhoun 1968; JH Silbey, "John C. Calhoun and the Limits of Southern Congressional Unity, 1841-1850" Historian, 1967; RB Latner, "The Nullification Crisis and Republican Subversion" Journal of Southern History, 1977; WW Freehling, The Nullification Era 1967; and Wiltse vol 2-3 of his great biography. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

a claim was made and cited:

"even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15]"

reference #15 provides calhoun's own words.

do calhoun's words say that the tariff issue was related to slavery or don't they?

because calhoun is being cited as the source here. if you're asserting that we mere mortals cannot understand the greatness of our forebears' oratory without the aid of interpretation by history professionals, then cite the vaunted screeds of history professionals, not calhoun, when claiming that "even the tariff was related to slavery."

sources should prove the cited assertions. this one does not. if calhoun's statement is the citation for the claim that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15]," then calhoun's statement itself should be very direct on the matter. a citation should be self-containing, i.e., not require any additional research to verify the claim. this one isn't.

i did find an interesting tidbit or two in the Ellis book at citation 15, though:

it was within this context of the resurgence of an agrarian and democratic kind of states' rights thought that South Carolina and Calhoun, concerned that the South was becoming a minority section and looking for a way to bring about tariff reduction and also indirectly to protect the institution of slavery from outside interference, took up the states' rights argument.

....and there existed both considerable fear of slave rebellion and a growing sensitivity to even the smallest criticicm of the "peculiar institution"

...Old Republicans never made the defense of slavery a central political concern the way Calhoun and his follower began to do after 1833.

So is it more "original research" to read Ellis' words and take their gist? Because what he's saying sure sounds an awful lot like my own commentary on Calhoun. You'll also notice that Ellis says Calhoun et al really only brought slavery to the forefront of their rhetoric after 1833 - 3 years after Calhoun's comments cited at reference #15.

so if he didn't even adopt slavery as a central platform tenet until 1833 (per Ellis, one of the sources), how could his comments from 3 years prior be taken as proof the tariff dispute was about slavery? it makes no sense.

and the only thing Ellis makes mention of linking is the protection of slavery under the states' rights penumbra. he does NOT assert that the tariff question had to do with slavery.

i also read the second reference listed at #15, yet another citation of Calhoun's words and Freehling's assertion that "The nullifiers' decision to fight the abolitionists indirectly by contending against the tariff raises the obvious question..."

so, beyond the editorializing of the author, we have dueling sources here: Ellis says Calhoun did not begin championing slavery until 1833, but Freehling seems to think that Calhoun's 1830 commentary is an indirect fight with the abolitionists, which is really funny because Freehling goes on to say:

Why didn't South Carolina meet the slavery issue head on? The obvious answer is that in 1832, there was as yet no political abolitionist movement to fight against.

agree with me or not, but the sourcing here needs help.

i will look into the sources you provided regarding Calhoun, but it would be absolutely fantastic if you could provide page numbers. i'm asking for a very direct statement - that calhoun's 1830 comments support the notion that the tariff dispute was about slavery. that should be very easy to find and cite.

thanks!

Cedwyn (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

okay, well, i looked at the first book you listed - LK Ford Origins of Southern Radicalism. but since i don't have a page number to work from, i just had to read around and found this:

the public debate between Nullifiers and Unionists in South Carolina was not primarily a debate over the tariff, slavery, or the personalities of Calhoun and Jackson. Instead, the debate over nullification revolved around competing concepts of how best to defend republican values of liberty and independence.

sounds like Ford is attesting to the prominence of states' rights over slavery as a primary concern... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedwyn (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Ford is talking about republican values; see Republicanism in the United States Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then please do everyone a favor and cite the page numbers wherein Ford asserts that the tariff issue was about slavery and uses Calhoun's words to demonstrate it.

In the meantime, on page 124 she states that "Calhoun was free to map a bold strategy of opposition to the tariff based on republican principles."

Cedwyn (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Nullification break

The Calhoun quote "I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause" goes on to mention issues related to South Carolina's "peculiar domestick [sic] institution" as the real cause, a clear reference to slavery. This is reason enough to say that the tariff issue was related to slvery, in that Calhoun believed that a connection between the two did exist.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

yes; Calhoun's quote mentions their "peculiar domestick [sic] institution." but he does not say it is "the real cause" of anything. what he is saying there is that the South's agrarian economy, with its dependence on slavery, has placed the South in a minority re: Congress. did you read my breakdown of it, or the Ellis passage I quoted:

it was within this context of the resurgence of an agrarian and democratic kind of states' rights thought that South Carolina and Calhoun, concerned that the South was becoming a minority section and looking for a way to bring about tariff reduction and also indirectly to protect the institution of slavery from outside interference, took up the states' rights argument.

....and there existed both considerable fear of slave rebellion and a growing sensitivity to even the smallest criticicm of the "peculiar institution"

that's pretty much what I said about Calhoun's quote and Ellis is one of the sources cited. so even the cited source doesn't think Calhoun's quote ties the tariff to question to slavery. he is saying that slavery and tariffs are tied to states' rights, not that slavery is tied to tariffs, or vice versa. if ellis does believe that and asserts it in his book, that should be what is cited, not Calhoun's own words. the citation used does not support the notion that "the tariff was about slavery" without additional interpretation/research. it should not stand until that is remedied.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The overarching point about Calhoun is this:

the ACW article states that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15]"

The source cited for that assertion quotes Calhoun's words. Since you and I obviously have different takes on their meaning, we need outside, expert sourcing. We need consensus opinion works establishing that the tariff dispute was about slavery.

Even Ellis, the source for the Calhoun quote, doesn't seem to think so.

The statement should be removed until it can be adequately sourced.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn