Jump to content

Talk:American Civil War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Minor edit.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{FAQ}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{American English}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1=PR
|action1date=April 10, 2006
|action1date=April 10, 2006
Line 21: Line 23:
|action4link=Talk:American Civil War/Archive 5#GA passing
|action4link=Talk:American Civil War/Archive 5#GA passing
|action4result=Listed
|action4result=Listed
|action4oldid=93373461
|action4oldid=93373461


|action5=WAR
|action5=WAR
Line 31: Line 33:
|action6=WAR
|action6=WAR
|action6date=20:03, 28 March 2007
|action6date=20:03, 28 March 2007
|action6link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War
|action6link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2
|action6result=approved
|action6result=approved
|action6oldid=118578254
|action6oldid=118578254
Line 52: Line 54:
|action9result=not promoted
|action9result=not promoted
|action9oldid=169390768
|action9oldid=169390768
| action10 = GAR
| action10date = 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
| action10link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/1
| action10result = kept
| action10oldid =


|action10=GAR
|topic=History
|action10date=23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA
|action10link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/1
|action10result=kept
|action10oldid=257057790

|action11=PR
|action11date=02:50, 23 March 2011
|action11link=Wikipedia:Peer review/American Civil War/archive3
|action11result=reviewed
|action11oldid=419708507

|action12=GAR
|action12date=01:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
|action12link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2
|action12result=delisted
|action12oldid=04035795

|topic=War
|currentstatus=DGA

|action13=WAR
|action13date=21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
|action13link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War
|action13result=demoted
|action13oldid=610792959

|action14=PR
|action14date=12 December 2015
|action14link=Wikipedia:Peer review/American Civil War/archive4
|action14result=reviewed

|action15=GAN
|action15date=25 May 2021
|action15link=Talk:American Civil War/GA1
|action15result=failed
|action15oldid=1024948659

|otd1date=2004-12-20|otd1oldid=8699678
|otd2date=2005-12-20|otd2oldid=32085448
|otd3date=2006-12-20|otd3oldid=95320435
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{notice|Please read the following FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) before posting comments.
{{WikiProject Military history
|class=B
|A-Class=fail
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|ACW=yes
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=high}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|USOldwest=Yes|USOldwest-importance=High |UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top |USMIL=yes |ACW=yes|portal1-name=United States|portal1-link=Selected article/11}}
|1={{WPMILHIST|A-Class=pass|class=A|ACW=yes|US=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=geraldshields11|date=February 15, 2013}}
|2={{USProject|class=GA|nested=yes}}
|3={{USHistoryTalk|class=GA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
|4={{FAOL|Alemannic German|als:Sezessionskrieg|lang2=Astur-Leonese|link2=ast:Guerra de Secesión|lang3=Hebrew|link3=he:מלחמת האזרחים האמריקנית|lang4=Portuguese|link4=pt:Guerra Civil Americana|nested=yes}}
}}
}}
{{Press| title = Who, What, Why: How many soldiers died in the US Civil War?| author = Daniel Nasaw| date = 4 April 2012| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991| org = [[BBC]]| section = News Magazine BBC website|collapsed=yes}}
{{American Civil War}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=History|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
{{section size}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 13 2017 (21st)}}


}}
{| class="infobox" width="275px"
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
----
}}
|-
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
|maxarchivesize = 150K
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
|counter = 24
*[[/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
|minthreadsleft = 5
*[[/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
|algo = old(60d)
*[[/Archive 5|Archive 5]]
|archive = Talk:American Civil War/Archive %(counter)d
*[[/Archive 6|Archive 6]]
}}
*[[/Archive 7|Archive 7]] February 2008 - June 2008
{{refideas
*[[/Archive 8|Archive 8]] June 2008 - December 2008
| 1 = {{cite book |last1=Leonard |first1=Elizabeth D. |author-link=Elizabeth D. Leonard |title=All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies |date=1999 |publisher=W.W. Norton & Co. |edition=1st |isbn=0-3930-4712-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/alldaringofsoldi00leon |url-access=registration}}
|}
}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|Catfurball|Important}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024 ==
== Bleeding Kansas, NOT Ft. Sumter! ==


{{edit semi-protected|American Civil War|answered=yes}}
It is quite clear that the Ft. Sumter demarcation as beginning of the conflict is absolutely incorrect and Union [[ex-post facto]] propaganda of [[triumphalism]], like when [[Henry VII of England]] declared [[Richard III of England]] to have been the villainous traitor, even though Richard was technically the only one with the Crown, regardless of merit, on the day leading up until his death, Henry only being crowned on the battlefield afterwards, after which Henry edited the date of his rule to the day before. The point is, the War Between the States began as a private and sectional affair. The rabble rousing butchery by abolitionist murderers like John Brown in Kansas, against Federal law in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was the very beginning of the War and the organized Southern response was the assault on Ft. Sumter, after the assault on one of the Northern Congressmen (Sumner) by a Southron (Brooks) during a session of Congress. Kansas is conveniently trivialized by the majority of Union apologists, even though the sequence of compromises over the decades between North and South was the order of the day, whether right or wrong. From Mason-Dixon to Ohio River, to Missouri-Iowa, to Kansas-Nebraska, to Arizona-New Mexico. Delaware was a boundary dispute between the proprietors of Maryland and Pennsylvania, then moving westwards, Virginia was split in half, Kentucky was internally divided (between the Northwest and Southwest Territories), then Missouri as well, followed by Kansan pioneers besieged by Abolitionist foreigners whose stock in trade was filibustering, then the wish of Arizonans to achieve independence from New Mexico and Union neglect.
I found this on CitationHunt and my account isn't old enough to directly edit. I don't care about the Confederates (derogatory) but I did find reputable citations that I'd like to offer:[[User:Keslambo|Keslambo]] ([[User talk:Keslambo|talk]]) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]
The simple fact of the matter is that is how it went, even if hardly ideal circumstances for either side of the conflict. Especially for the South, all the new land-grabbing put themselves in a weaker position, because places like Louisiana, Texas, California-New Mexico and Arizona were not the base of Anglo-America and they consequently couldn't hope to survive. The Union held most of the original 13 states which were British colonies, although it is truth that the Virginia origins of America were constantly being undermined by patriotic anti-monarchism. National sentiments were increasingly anti-[[London Company]], more [[Plymouth Company]]. It was less about [[Raleigh]] and [[Drake]], than about the Pilgrims and Quakers, who were not mainstream Britons. It is a mistake to equate the Federal Government with Abolitionism, for that arrangement only existed upon the election of Lincoln and the Republicans' new establishment. The secessionist [[Hartford Convention]] during 1814 and the story of the Mormons in their beginnings and the [[Utah War]] is a perfect example of how the North provided anti-Federalist enclaves. While the [[Shakers]] died out, the Amish still exist as a well known antisocial group if the rest of the nation's standards are to be a judgment. The North was the same as today, wholly opposed to the regular order of living and more into experimentation, the counter-culture. The Republicans were the inverse scenario of everyday America, with a counter-culture coup d'etat which caused the War. It was socioeconomic engineering on their part for a utopian world of their own imagining which was the main drive in the conflict, for the South never insisted the North live according to their way, only that each do their own thing without molestation. The situation was relatively the same as the [[English Civil War]], with the Puritans out for Anglican blood, only this time, it was Massachusetts vs Virginia, William Lloyd Garrison vs Robert E. Lee.


Encyclopedia Virginia states that this guy's defensive stand in Chickamauga earned him the nickname "the Rock of Chickamauga" which I believe directly addresses the latter part of that section. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/)
I just pointed out how anti-Americanism on the part of Northerners with disgust for Southern elections in the White House (e.g. the Virginia Dynasty, Jeffersonianism, Jacksonianism) and Congress (Douglas, Clay, Calhoun) has little to no coverage on Wikipedia or in the stereotypes of the War and the disputes between the two blocs of Americana. So why continue the bias, the POV on behalf of the North? Hey, the North won, but that doesn't mean we have to be force-fed the idealized, whitewashed version of how things ought to have been, even if that's what we might all agree with to be our primary outlook. So many "minorities" and special interest groups are vocal and adamant about retelling their histories without the standard whitewashing. In what way is this different? The [[Jesusland map]] dictates our conscience? Why is it acceptable to cut "certain" people down in the open for telling the truth? Oh, anybody who could lift a finger in defense of a beaten people, must be as dumb and ignorant as those hillbillies. Apathy has no place in a society that really cares for the poor and forlorn among them. Never mind, just walk all over those American savages and put others on pedestals, just to spite Southerners. How appropriate. Yes, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind as Ghandi said. Wouldn't liberal hippie Northerners care for their hearts, rather than their minds, or at least get priorities straight?


To address the former part of the second sentence, I believe it should be reworded with this section reading:
What I am asking for, is a dedicated collaboration of editors with a history steeped in Americana to counter systemic bias with at least the simple matter of Southern Kansas vs Northern Nebraska as the official beginning of organized armed conflict, yes on the part of Northerners...no, I am not expecting a rectification for all the lies spread about. This will do for now. Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
<!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga.
:The [[Bleeding Kansas]] controversy is mentioned in the article. The war began after the [[Fort Sumter]] crisis.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[citation exists in article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullahoma_Campaign], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[proposed citation above: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/]. Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east)[I can also provide a National Park Service Historical Handbook citation for that: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm]. [[User:Keslambo|Keslambo]] ([[User talk:Keslambo|talk]]) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Really? It is called a Civil War for a reason. Citizens and not the military, were the first to strike blood. You people define the war as between capitals, like Washington and Montgomery or Richmond, when that was just a further development of the ongoing conflict. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:{{ping|Keslambo}} Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you summarize this into a "Change X to Y" format, preferably in a reply to this message? —&nbsp;[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="download;font-family:Noto Sans Mono, Verdana">BerryForPerpetuity</span>]] [[User talk:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="">(talk)</span>]] 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
You are also tunnel-visioning the issue to the Nullification Crisis, rather than looking at the very first expression of violence, without regard for the specific issue as determining the overall warfare. You also do not explain yourself. You simply repeat the propaganda of "official history", without even any details. Grade F in my opinion! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Yes of course and I will do that in the future. Thank you for the tip @[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|BerryForPerpetuity]]!
::Please change [The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]] to [Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[[Tullahoma Campaign|[1]]], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/ <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east).[https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>] [[User:Keslambo|Keslambo]] ([[User talk:Keslambo|talk]]) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


== Is the X next to abraham lincolns name really necessary? ==
:What source are you using for this?..and back off with the "you people" stuff unless you want to be ignored. Respect is a two-way street.<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
::Agree with Berean...if you're going to come at us with some left-field revisionist history, you need to provide some pretty compelling references, rather than an argument of logic. Oh, and Berean, thanks for your work to clean the redundant copies of that post. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You're welcome.[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


He was only assasinated after the war, so is it needed? [[User:Pidger|Pidger]] ([[User talk:Pidger|talk]]) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Rather, the issue should be convincing people that it is appropriate to pretend that Bleeding Kansas was not violence and that Ft. Sumter was violence. You are promoting the view of Southern aggression, without a look at the abolitionist subculture of the North that wanted to force the South into submission for its "sins" by enslaving other men. Well, if the Southerners were being aggressive, you might be right in their use of the Federal Government to enhance the cause of slavery by continually opening the Western territories to either stipulation for slaves south of some point, or referendums possibly resulting in new territories having slaves. The South is on record for being the aggressor towards Mexico, on behalf of slave power. You must admit that I am not revising history here, but that you are whitewashing the North's hostilities with the War by trivializing Bleeding Kansas and putting all the weight upon Ft. Sumter. It would be much easier to point out that Bleeding Kansas was caused by Northerners without Federal power (then in the Democrats' corner), but that the Southerner's response, also without Federal power (then in the Republicans' corner), was the attack on Sumter. Why focus on simply a fight against the Lincolnian Republican administration on part of Southerners? It is widely written of Abolitionist hate for the Democrats' promotion of slavery and the Whig failure to do anything about it. That's what John Brown was about. But no, go ahead and blame the South for aggression against the North and blame Lincoln's election for the War. Is this the revisionist compromise you are advocating? If it is, then it is just too late for reality. You already have all the academic references at your fingertips, but your perception of these events is skewed. ''Onset'' of hostilities couldn't be Sumter, because that was the second stage of violence. Otherwise, why even include Kansas? The Wikipedia presentation doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The War was not simply about secession and confederation, so South Carolina's move was a result of earlier events, just as John Brown and his ilk had inspiration from earlier events to justify their violence against Southerners and the Southern, [[Slave Power]] stranglehold on the Federal government at the time, with such people as Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan being the opposite of Abraham Lincoln. What kind of myopia cannot see that the status quo of the establishment changed with the election of Lincoln, but that the warmongers in the North were edging for Abolition long before, personified in Brown best of all? Furthermore, Wikipedia makes it seem like Missouri was the aggressor in the Kansas affair, when the [[Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company]] went way out of the way to send its filibusters (to Kansas from places far away) to destroy the Lecompton Constitution by invading Kansas, a territory that had the support of the Democratic Federal administration. It fails to mention the natural westward movement of people into the location of Kansas from the east, ''before'' the Emigrant Society sent its filibusters. The whole reason to send emigrant filibusters, was because native Kansans (the ones who were there because they pioneered in the original Missouri territory which became carved into separate territories, for instance, Kansas) were promoting slavery in their own territory and were receiving recognition and support from sympathizers in the Federal government, many of whom were Southern, but the Presidents were Doughface Northerners. As it turned out, the "martyrdom" of Brown led to a Republican coalition stronger than people in South Carolina could tolerate, so that resulted in not only the Democratic evacuation from the Federal government, but the secession of the South. You want references from me about this? I have not edited any of these pages on Wikipedia, but they all point to this data I present here. I'm not looking at other websites or books at all. So, your demand that I provide "evidence" is fallacious. I'm finding all kinds of holes in the logic of Wikipedia's self-contradictory presentation of all this, so when you defend it, you must be the ones to substantiate your positions. All I asked for, was some people who have the materials, to repair the nonsense written here. I'm not about to do it myself, because this is all the trouble I am going to get into on behalf of Wikipedia. Because you promote and defend obvious falsehoods, you must have agendas. You are apparently profiting from misnomers and any request from you to improve these articles will result in nothing good, but maybe strengthened propaganda to make it worse. What a waste of time, but confirmation that your sentiments are nefarious. If you had a clue what it is I am stating, then we would not be going on like this. Your objection makes me not trust your objectives. [[WP:BIAS|Countering systemic bias]] is something you must have no interest in, as it would hurt your goals or comfort in lies. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:He was assassinated a little over one month before (14 April) the formal end of the war as the article defines it (26 May). [[User:AntiDionysius|<span style="color:green">AntiDionysius</span>]] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:AntiDionysius|talk]]</span>) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
From the very beginning, you showed no interest. Any claim that I'm being unreasonable, is trumped. You simply didn't care to begin with to rectify anything. I'm pretty sure you don't want me touching the articles anyways, because it would interfere with your control of the information. So, I'm exercising prudence, rather than engaging in edit wars with you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024 ==
:[[WP:RANT]]. [[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
::Hmm. I see lots of words and still no references. I've no problem with the concept of countering systemic bias, but if you'll read the wikiproject guidelines, systemic bias is countered not by yelling from a soapbox, but by finding legitimate references that balance the viewpoint. ''That'' is where you are lacking. All argument, no support. Oh, and as for your statement "You are apparently profiting from misnomers..." dang, ''profiting''? From Wikipedia? Where was I when they were handing out the checks?'''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|American Civil War|answered=yes}}
Wikipedia is self-contradictory and you want references? Look no further than your own editing! It is thoroughly amusing to be pointed to the Soapbox guideline, when the very nature of the POV pushed in Civil War articles is against the letter of that "law" and certainly no where close to the spirit, but there are numerous loopholes you lot have exploited to push your anti-Southern bias. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Change "The war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead" to "The war left an estimated 698,000 soldiers dead, with the true number likely falling between 647,439 and 748,561"
:Watch who you're calling "anti-southern"...I was born in Texas, thank you. Bottom line, provide references. Period, end of story, end of argument. Show me a couple of reputable historians or history-related publications that say what you're saying, and I'll personally add the material. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Reference:
::Article size is the main problem with adding anything big. The article is almost 100k. A brief mention of the 1856 [[Pottawatomie Massacre]] could be added, but then it would also make sense to add mention of violence (including a few murders) and massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri [[Border Ruffians]]. I don't think the overall addition would make anyone happy. The article currently links to [[Bleeding Kansas]] and [[John Brown]] for those who want to know more. If Wikipedia contradicts itself, give us some specifics. Other details of the Bleeding Kansas controversy that would appear to be anti-South if they were added include the 1855 [[Wakarusa War]], the 1856 [[Sacking of Lawrence]], the 1856 [[Battle of Osawatomie]] and the 1858 [[Marais des Cygnes massacre]]. Be careful what you ask for.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121 [[User:Academic world 2020|Academic world 2020]] ([[User talk:Academic world 2020|talk]]) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> It's not clear to me that this formulation is meaningfully more accurate or helpful to a general readership. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::I do actually think we should use the new data here; I'd meant to get around to reading the paper and figuring out how to present it. But it's clearly important new data, the NYtimes ran an article about it yesterday. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::"The war resulted in an estimated 698,000 soldier deaths"
:::This formulation reflects the most accurate figure available to date. This estimate is based on the comprehensive analysis presented in PNAS. Also, the findings have been highlighted in a recent New York Times article.
:::Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121
:::https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/health/civil-war-death-toll.html [[Special:Contributions/5.195.74.110|5.195.74.110]] ([[User talk:5.195.74.110|talk]]) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Alright, I updated the lead and the casualties section. I didn't end up amending the infobox yet because its a bear, and this new source doesn't actually give precise "this is how many died on each side" numbers. Although with more work it might be possible to divine the number out of it yet...its just very dense. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Lincolns assassination in the lead ==
At least you are now paying attention, Jimmuldrow. The other person is purposely avoiding the issues. Jim, since the fighting began under Buchanan's administration, it should be presented as the onset of the whole War. Sumter is nevertheless, a very important sequence in the overall violence and represents a major turning point in the status quo, for it was no longer a slippery slope for the Slave Power in Washington, but an indication that they were shut out by the Republicans and South Carolina took it the whole way. Of course, the Border Ruffians were an initial group of people who were fighting the rush of abolitionism in the South by outside forces and their fight with the Yankees--an appropriate name because they were from Massachusetts--characterized the rest of the War. Brown's people were operating outside the law, but according to their sense of moral dictates and had no government sanction, unlike the Border Ruffians, who were enforcing Buchanan's administration for Kansans. The major shift with Sumter, was the change in the Federal government, for it then did a completely 360 turn and that's probably why so many people look at Sumter as the beginning. Many want to denote the secession as a revolt against absolutism in Washington, but the conflict is on record as beginning with the invasion of Kansas by anti-slavery activists, who were just as wrong with the Federal government then, as the secessionists were five years later. It would be better to show the origins of the Civil War to be the failure of the Whigs to satisfy the people like Brown, who took matters into their own hands, just as the Southerners were later to do with Sumter. The outline of the timeline leading up to the war, should concentrate generally on Southern Manifest Destiny and Northern Abolitionism, which ended up clashing in blood at Kansas and being the whole reason why the violence wouldn't stop. In essence, it was no isolated instance, but the result of built up tensions that were fully flared under Lincoln. It is erroneous, but most Civil War presentations focus on Lincoln-Johnson, rather than Buchanan-Lincoln, as the nexus of all this. It was with the transition of Whig to Republican that the most fervent war cries were made. Brown was the voice of the newfound Republicans, for they considered the Whigs to be too lenient. All I'd hope for is a balanced POV on this. Lee refused to lead the Union Army because he knew that Washington was going to invade Virginia to enforce Republican legislation, just as Brown had attempted to force his sense of righteousness in Kansas. The shoe was on the other foot with Sumter, that's all. Brown's kind was in power then, although they were the ones working outside of Federal sanction beforehand. The dynamic of this shift should be explored more, but I hardly think that's a controversial sentiment to raise, unless of course, the people reading this are just Scalawag Union apologists from Down South. Let me tell the guy before you, that Texas ain't the place for born and bred Southrons at heart so much as he'd think. Republican Eisenhower was the product of Carpetbagger parents, just as the Republican Bushes are Carpetbagger oil men in Texas, although Bush 43 is somewhat of a Doughface like Pierce and Buchanan because of his mother Barbara Pierce. In any case, I wasn't wanting to alter any material myself on any of these articles, but just mention the lack of consistency with the POV being pushed about how the War went on. I also am not contradicting the majority of the material already at Wikipedia, only hoping that some of the myopia can be expanded and the focus to cover the period as between the Invasion of Kansas until the Fall of the Freemen. The structure could be done with three sub-periods, with the entrance of the Yankees to Kansas, to the secession of South Carolina, to the start of Reconstruction. There is the long series of events before Kansas and the long series which led up until 1965, but those are not as central to the War itself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 01:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I didn't mean to cause such chaos by changing a this to a that :P My original wording of that phrase was intended to show that Lincoln lived to see Lee's surrender, which was the death knell of the confederacy. I.e. Lincoln lived to see victory, and then was killed shortly thereafter. It's a way to mention his assassination, which needs a lead level mention for sure, and to make it read in an interesting and helpful manner. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The side issue that needs to be explored, is the nature of the population of Kansas. If not for the Emigrant Society formed by the Yankees, Kansas would have remained Southron, with or without slaves. It was the Free-Soil movement which tried to make Kansas along the lines of the Northwest Territory, so now, most people in Kansas are 19th century German immigrants rather than American. This is important to understand the nature of the violence in Kansas. Even if the point of Kansas (as opposed to Nebraska) emerging as a territory of its own, was to provide more slave land, it does not erase the fact that Southrons were there first. The statements written about Kansas seem to overlook or diminish this, most likely because of the slave issue and the fact that the Northerners won Kansas through bloodshed, but not through legislation. Lecompton was a legitimate constitution by the first Kansans, regardless of slavery. It was deposed by the immigration of non-Kansans who have since steered the state away from its Southern and specifically Missourian origins, much like the origins of Arizona upon the Gadsden Purchase as an originally Texan offshoot. Arizona's first administrators were born in Tennessee and Kentucky, moved to Texas and they were chosen by the people who lived in Arizona, but that state is usually not accounted for as Southern outside of country music today, even though it has a whole lot in common with Texas. So, unofficially, places like Kansas and Arizona experienced their own forms of "Reconstruction", but due to the very short lifespan of their Southern origins, their identities are glossed over by subsequent migrants. Consider the current issues with Kansas and the teaching of evolution in public schools, vs creationism. Creationism would likely still be taught there if not for the Reconstruction of that place by German immigrants on behalf of Massachusetts people, who were all Unitarian Universalists and very liberal then, as now. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.111.15.230|68.111.15.230]] ([[User talk:68.111.15.230|talk]]) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:@[[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ok, more detail was added about Bleeding Kansas. It would add too much to the article length to add more, but there are links to a number of other related Wikipedia article. Wiki-linking makes a huge amount of detail easily available.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 04:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


== Summary checks ==
You're the only one with a brain around here. Thanks Jim! There is another idea that would be workable: scale down and condense the rest, so there is the beginning Kansas period, intermediary Sumter period and the following KKK period. This is the full extent of the violence associated with this War. I would only include a few sentences about annexationism and abolitionism in the introduction. I'm sorry to have to ask anybody for help with this, but I'm not particularly adept at composing professional essays. In addition, I am afraid that any editing of the articles will simply be blocked as "tendentious editing", when all I mean is to improve and increase the scope of the War. I tried to put my message all around the primary articles' discussion pages, in order for a "reconstruction" to really come to place on the subject. Nevertheless, your assistance is very much appreciated!


I've been working on the [[Attacks on the United States]] article and I wrote some summaries for the few Confederate campaigns against the Union (i.e. campaigns against the U.S.). Can someone who is familiar enough with the Civil War take a look to make sure (1) I didn't butcher any of the campaign summaries and (2) make sure nothing else is needed for the summaries? See ([[Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865)]]). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
==About Games==
Would anybody be upset if games are moved to [[List of American Civil War battles]]?[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:35, 23 December 2024

Former good articleAmerican Civil War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 28, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 21, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 10, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
March 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 30, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewDemoted
December 12, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2004, December 20, 2005, and December 20, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

[edit]

I found this on CitationHunt and my account isn't old enough to directly edit. I don't care about the Confederates (derogatory) but I did find reputable citations that I'd like to offer:Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]

Encyclopedia Virginia states that this guy's defensive stand in Chickamauga earned him the nickname "the Rock of Chickamauga" which I believe directly addresses the latter part of that section. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/)

To address the former part of the second sentence, I believe it should be reworded with this section reading:

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga.

Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[citation exists in article: [1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[proposed citation above: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/]. Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east)[I can also provide a National Park Service Historical Handbook citation for that: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm]. Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keslambo: Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you summarize this into a "Change X to Y" format, preferably in a reply to this message? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course and I will do that in the future. Thank you for the tip @BerryForPerpetuity!
Please change [The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]] to [Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[2] Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east).[3] Keslambo (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the X next to abraham lincolns name really necessary?

[edit]

He was only assasinated after the war, so is it needed? Pidger (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was assassinated a little over one month before (14 April) the formal end of the war as the article defines it (26 May). AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

[edit]

Change "The war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead" to "The war left an estimated 698,000 soldiers dead, with the true number likely falling between 647,439 and 748,561"

Reference: Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121 Academic world 2020 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: It's not clear to me that this formulation is meaningfully more accurate or helpful to a general readership. Remsense ‥  20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually think we should use the new data here; I'd meant to get around to reading the paper and figuring out how to present it. But it's clearly important new data, the NYtimes ran an article about it yesterday. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The war resulted in an estimated 698,000 soldier deaths"
This formulation reflects the most accurate figure available to date. This estimate is based on the comprehensive analysis presented in PNAS. Also, the findings have been highlighted in a recent New York Times article.
Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/health/civil-war-death-toll.html 5.195.74.110 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I updated the lead and the casualties section. I didn't end up amending the infobox yet because its a bear, and this new source doesn't actually give precise "this is how many died on each side" numbers. Although with more work it might be possible to divine the number out of it yet...its just very dense. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolns assassination in the lead

[edit]

I didn't mean to cause such chaos by changing a this to a that :P My original wording of that phrase was intended to show that Lincoln lived to see Lee's surrender, which was the death knell of the confederacy. I.e. Lincoln lived to see victory, and then was killed shortly thereafter. It's a way to mention his assassination, which needs a lead level mention for sure, and to make it read in an interesting and helpful manner. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus @Slatersteven CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary checks

[edit]

I've been working on the Attacks on the United States article and I wrote some summaries for the few Confederate campaigns against the Union (i.e. campaigns against the U.S.). Can someone who is familiar enough with the Civil War take a look to make sure (1) I didn't butcher any of the campaign summaries and (2) make sure nothing else is needed for the summaries? See (Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865)). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]