Talk:American Civil War

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

To Sum Up Answers to Questions About Misunderstandings - Please leave as is

This is an alternate version. Please leave this version as is, and comment in the comments version below.

Here is the "striking contrast" Stampp was talking about:

Before Confederate defeat, Stephens said 'African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization ... was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.'

After Confederate defeat, Stephens said that those who believe that "African Slavery" caused the war were "but superficial observers," and that the real causes of the war "lay in the organic Structure of the Government of the States ... between the supporters of a strictly Federative Government, on the one side, and a thoroughly National one, on the other."

Stephens did change his story from describing slavery as the cause of the war to saying that slavery was not the cause of the war. I think we can move on from this issue, as the paragraph in question carefully references and reflects exactly what Stampp had to say, and what Stephens had to say.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: Stephens reversed himself on whether slavery was the cause of the war, not on whether states had rights.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 2: As to whether some of the best Civil War historians didn't do enough research, or weren't good enough, I don't know how to begin to respond to that one.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 3: As to Davis, the point isn't whether he said that states had rights, but rather that he led the Southern fight for slavery in the territories before the war, and developed elaborate Lost Cause arguments for separating slavery from states' rights after Confederate defeat. The following quote from Jefferson Davis, from his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Part 1 Chapter 10, stands in sharp contrast to his pre-war pro-slavery statements:

The reader of many of the treatises on these events, which have been put forth as historical, if dependent upon such alone for information, might naturally enough be led to the conclusion that the controversies which arose between the States, and the war in which they culminated, were caused by efforts on the one side to extend and perpetuate human slavery, and on the other to resist it and establish human liberty. The Southern States and Southern people have been sedulously represented as "propagandists" of slavery, and the Northern as the defenders and champions of universal freedom, and this view has been so arrogantly assumed, so dogmatically asserted, and so persistently reiterated, that its authors have, in many cases, perhaps, succeeded [pg 78] in bringing themselves to believe it, as well as in impressing it widely upon the world.

The attentive reader of the preceding chapters—especially if he has compared their statements with contemporaneous records and other original sources of information—will already have found evidence enough to enable him to discern the falsehood of these representations, and to perceive that, to whatever extent the question of slavery may have served as an occasion, it was far from being the cause of the conflict.

Note 4: To say that Stephens and Davis talked about states' rights before the war is misleading because many states' rights arguments used by secessionists when secession began (including South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession, among many others) were in the form of the right of Southern states to defend slavery. After the war, quite a few former secessionists tried to separate states' rights from the slavery issue. The "striking contrast" in question was between many complaints about slavery when secession began, and many attempts to deny that slavery caused secession and war after Confederate defeat. Some of the best Civil War historians did extensive research on these issues, and they are the references for the paragraph in question.

---

Also, the long version of the Lincoln quote that includes the phrase about slavery as "somehow the cause of the war" was added in a reference, so that should no longer be an issue. There is no question that Lincoln said what he said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The long version, which allegedly is not about slavery, is as follows:
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865 - Here Lincoln states, "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

Note: The article quote is 'slavery was "somehow the cause of the war,"' with the part in double quotes representing Lincoln's exact words. It doesn't have the quote as "slavery was somehow the cause of the war," so the quote is correct as is.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

This leaves the Calhoun quote as the remaining issue. The point to the Calhoun quote is not over whether the tariff controversy was related to only slavery and nothing else, or whether Calhoun and others said any number of other things in addition. The article only states that the tariff issue was "related to slavery," and this is true regardless of what else was related to the tariff. The following Calhoun quote, cited in the article, should answer any remaining questions about Calhoun and the tariff:

"I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness."Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This quote makes it clear that Calhoun interrelated slavery ("the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States"), the tariff ("taxation"), states' rights ("the reserved rights of the states") and slavery in the territories ("their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes"). So slavery, the tariff, states' rights and slavery in the territories were clearly related, according to Calhoun.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: Whether the tariff was "directly" related to slavery, and whether the relation was "causative" or "central," go beyond the scope of what the article has to say about this. Also, the Calhoun quote doesn't say much about the South's "minority status," or whether it was states' rights that related the tariff issue and slavery.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Two new issues as of 2008-12-18 as proposed by Cedwyn:

Because of the concern expressed by Cedwyn over article length, add two new sub-articles on the tariff and secession / states' rights.

The problem with this is that the article is once again approaching 100k. The tariff was much more important three decades before the war than in 1860-61. As for secession and states' rights, a detailed sub-article on this issue would be extremely redundant. The alleged rights of Southern states that were violated by the North, according to what secessionists said when explaining their reasons for secession, include:

• The election of Lincoln, because he said that slavery had to be put "in the course of ultimate extinction."
• The failure of Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
• Northern opposition to the Dred Scott decision.
• Northern opposition to the expansion of slavery into nationally owned territories.
• Northern opposition to a Southern desire for a slave code for the territories, which is the issue secessionists used to split the Democratic Party between North and South.
• Northern agitation against slavery.
• Northerners encouraging thousands of slaves to "leave their homes" via the Underground Railroad.

In short, a long list of issues that are already mentioned in the article would need to be mentioned again.

Now for issue number two. In order to reduce article length, Cedwyn would have us remove a very short description of all the financial advantages the North gained when Southern Senators were no longer in the Senate to block proposed bills for a transcontinental railroad, a homestead act, an internal revenue service and other financial changes that were crucial to funding the war.

The problem to removing mention of these thing, apart from the fact that to do so seems random, is the fact that the overall article length would be greatly increased for the worst possible reasons. The material to be added is material that is less important, and the small amount of material to be removed describes measures that were very important in helping the North get money for the war, and money is extremely important to any war.

Note 1: A lot of non-historians don't know that the war had financial implications that both helped fund the war effort and were important long after the war ended. The details of this are not obvious to everybody.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

The war should have never really occurred. The Confederacy felt that they would lose their voice in Washington because of the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Constitution says that if the people feel that the government is wrong, they should break off and form their own. This is exactly what the Confederate States of America said. - Ben

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)

that is not what that letter says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late ... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision

... The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them ... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.

He clearly denounces the idea that slavery is all they're fighting for.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

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 South chose secession; there didn't have to be war. Had the North recognized that right, there would not have been war. But both Buchanan and Lincoln asserted that states did not have a right to secede. And *that* is why the South fired on Ft. Sumter - it had nothing to do with slavery.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

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)

The comments by Red Harvest, above, reflect a skewed and singular view of history. Anyone contradicting him is labeled a "Southern revisionist", and it doesn't matter what is referenced and cited. Rather, I propose that this article on the war (1) stick to the topic of the war and not get off on the tangent of simple political history of either of the two countries and (2) give well-balanced materials from both Northern and Southern historians. Thus, I believe this article needs to be balanced, presenting a myriad of views, not just one. Therefore I ask that Red Harvest voluntarily restrain himself from editing the article, and allow other contributing editors to help correct and balance the article with their good faith edits. Grayghost01 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost (is that an alusion to Grey Ghosts of the Confederacy, one wonders), want people he disagrfees with to silence themsleves for a year or so. We can expect him to announce that he plans to set the example and silence himself for a year. I suggest he spend the year in reading the books that the rest of us are using. For a "southern" perspective he can try David Donald, and for a northern perspective, Allan Nevins. He will learn what scholars consider important. He should let us know as soon as he finishes. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 21 December 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. Tglacour (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ended Slavery?

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)

Fair enough, except that amendments are ratified by states; their passage is not something that can just be forced by a president, wartime or no. There was, what, a six-month gap between the end of the war and the 13th amendment? It's also true that later in the article, it states directly that "Lincoln also played a leading role in getting Congress to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment,[108] which made emancipation universal and permanent."

So to simply state that the war ended slavery is not quite accurate. Slavery persisted in some states right up until the passage of the 13th.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

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)

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)

so you are now allowing that slavery was not the only state right at issue? that the right to secede was the predominant factor? or is that not what you meant by "the issuse was secession and Union"?

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

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

Davis, Stephens and Switching

The article says this:

Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause.

As below re: Stephens, the source cited to support this does not contain any comparitive analysis demonstrating this "switch" in rationale.

Q: How does one determine that a person underwent a switch or change in philosophy from pre-war to post-war?

A: By comparing all of the person's pre-war thoughts and writings to all of the person's post-war thoughts and writings.

- This premise absolutely requires one to look to primary sources - the original writings and speeches, etc.

Here is Davis speaking ardently about states' rights and sovereignty before the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#Responses_to_Explanation_of_Stephens_Quotes

Here are examples of Stephens championing states' rights and sovereignty before the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#On_.22Switching.22

- So how can it be true that either of them made a "switch" or "reversal" or "changed his tune," given that Davis and Stephens' own words refute this premise? A: It cannot. There are too many direct quotes to the contrary.

The article also says this about Stephens:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15] There was a striking contrast [14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause the war[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

The citations for this claim are Stephens' Cornerstone Speech and A Constitutional View

- It cannot be extrapolated from one pre-war and one post-war writing that Stephens changed or reversed his position on what caused the war. To determine that would require a comparison of ALL pre- and post-war writings. The pages cited do not provide such a comparison.

- There is no contradiction or change in position from "slavery was the chief cause of secession" and "slavery did not cause the war." Secession != war. So it's kinda meaningless to draw that contrast.

- A Constitutional View was a colloquy format; Stephens was responding to specific questions and topics. So it's really meaningless to draw that contrast. Even still, the differences between Cornerstone and ACV do not, in themselves, establish that Stephens switched to the "lost cause" rationale for war, as claimed in the article.

- The portions of the article I've quoted here should not stand as they are. If they are to be kept, they require at least an edit.

If you disagree with me, please argue the merits of the specific points I've raised (the comments preceded by - ), instead of just "No; you're wrong and the article isn't changing." Thanks.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

This issue has been raised and answered elsewhere. Support for the change of position includes footnote #16 which says "James McPherson, This Mighty Scourge page 4. McPherson writes, 'After the war, however, Davis and Stephens changed their tune. By the time they wrote their histories of the Confederacy, slavery was gone with the wind -- a dead and discredited institution. To concede that the Confederacy had broken up the United States and launched a war that killed 620,000 Americans in a vain attempt to keep four million people in bondage would not confer honor on their lost cause.'" If you want to argue that Stephens and Davis were consistent before and after the war, find a reliable secondary source that says so. There is no need by anybody to comment on your unique interpretations of primary sources since they are irrelevant -- it is the facts and interpretations of the reliable secondary sources that dictate what goes into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. North Shoreman,

I specifically requested -very nicely - that you actually respond to the points I raised, instead of just issuing the boilerplate dismissal. This question is far from "settled;" answering my specific points would go a long way toward that.

Anyhoo, all McPherson does is declare it so, as I stated above. I've obviously read the citation, alright? It does not provide the comparaitive analysis needed to support the claim - the citation amounts to little more than "McPherson said so." That McPherson asserts it does not establish it as a consensus view. Why not find a stronger source for the claim?

And what is this trip against primary sources? It is NOT "original research" to freakin' read English. My god. By that definition, we're all "interpreting" and doing "original research" every time we read or listen to any spoken word. And we seem to get by just fine without the world being interpreted for us. And it's not like these people were speaking in Old English or something. Stephens and Davis themselves speak ardently and eloquently about states' rights and secession before the war. Why on earth should we take McPherson's word over theirs?

For the record, the English language is my bread and butter. Researching, writing and editing pays my bills. My job title includes the word "Editor," ok? I've also worked in legal offices, where you can bet your sweet bippies the precise meanings of words matter down to the last letter. Do I have a PhD in history? No. But I know what words mean and that's all that's required to take the plain meaning of Davis' or Stephens' words.

In any event, if we cannot use primary sources, direct quotes, etc. as references/citations, then it needs to be applied consistently.

Because here is a direct quote from John C. Calhoun used as a citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#Calhoun

If everything needs to be secondary-sourced, then Calhoun's own words cannot stand in support of the article claim, yes?

Oh, and neither can Abe Lincoln's own words be an adequate source here:

Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[105]

Then there's this primary source, Stephen' Cornerstone speech, clearly a no-no:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech

The rules need to be adhered to consistently.

So that is, what, a good three article items we can expect to be either removed or updated with new, secondary source references in the immediate future? Cuz primary sources can't be references, right? I look forward to that!

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which contains the following:

Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are referenced, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources.

All far as the uses of primary sources that you cite, the Stephens and Calhoun quotes are also supported by secondary sources. This has been demonstrated to you on numerous occasions throughout these discussions. The Lincoln quote certainly could be if anyone REALLY is confused by its clear meaning and requires a source (read the part of the above that says, "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others".)

As far as whether it is necessary to find “a stronger source” than McPherson, you might actually have a legitimate issue if you were able to produce any reliable secondary source that says anything different. With all due respect to your title of “Editor”, McPherson’s credentials do not need to be defended . He has done the work, put in the years, and received the plaudits of his peers -- when McPherson speaks, Wikipedia should take note. William J. Cooper Jr., author of probably the most thorough biography of Davis and editor of a representative sampling of Davis’ speeches and writings, certainly agrees with McPherson when he writes about Davis’ “Rise and Fall”(p. 619), “Slavery, which in 1861 and before he had regarded as central, he now downplayed as the cause of secession.” Cooper makes it clear that Davis’ post-war efforts were not to present an objective account of the war, but to provide “vindication for his cause.” (p. 620) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No; secondary sources in support of the "tariff was related to slavery" statement have not been provided. But I've quoted LK Ford, from Origins of Southern Radicalism:

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.

So we've got one primary source Calhoun quote, the meaning of which is debatable, as evidenced by the debate about it here, against one secondary source discrediting the conclusion presented. The statement needs to be stricken or get better sourcing.

And the citation quidelines also say this:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made

The Calhoun quote does not directly support the assertion made. It is all kinds of original research to decide it means the tariff was related to slavery. If all these secondary sources supporting the claim/interpretation have been provided, then use one of those as the citation, not the Calhoun quote. Why so much resistance to making the article stronger? If we've got better sources, then why not use them?

The guidelines also say this: Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. So that's at least 3 strikes against the Calhoun quote as a reference source.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

People are conflating war and secession. That slavery was a large factor in secession does not mean it was a primary motivator for war. World of difference. There is no "change in viewpoint" from slavery was a cause of secession to slavery was not a cause of the war. But the article mixes the two:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12][13] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[14] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[15] There was a striking contrast [14][16] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause the war[15] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

Slavery ceased to be an issue once the South seceded, yannow? That needs to be fixed.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

You repeat yourself and ignore the responses you've already received. I addressed the Ford quote before and demonstrated that you took it out of context. I then provided a more on point quote from Ford. As to Calhoun, both Freehling and Ellis are cited in the footnote and they both interpret the quote. I also in the discussion referred to a biographer of Calhoun who did the same thing. You've made such a mess of ths discussion page that apparently even you can't follow what has already been argued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make a mess of the page - somebody else did that. And man, for all your condescension of "you can't even keep what's been discussed straight," I've already spoken on the Frehling and Ellis, and Ford questions. I've replied to just about everything you've posted. You are very much ignoring what's already been said, acting as though replies to your posts never even happened and that your posts/claims are settled word. In any event:

If we have secondary sources supporting the claim, why aren't we using them? Get the Calhoun quote out of there and cite a secondary source. Isn't that the preferred protocol, and that primary sources are only to be used for explanatory material, and are "not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion"?

That Nivens citation, by the way, is yet another Calhoun quote and it's from 1832, well after the initial dispute was underway; it was almost resolved by that point. And even if Calhoun is saying what is claimed he's saying, he is but one man. Hardly a sample upon which to base an assertion about an event that involved many, many players. At best, it represents Calhoun's opinion, not any fact that the nullification dispute was related to slavery. Adopting that connection at the tail end of the dispute is hardly significant in terms of "related to."

Please do speak to the "not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion" question. It's kinda integral here.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

You claim, “I've replied to just about everything you've posted” yet here is a very notable example of something you have not replied to:

Also William J. Cooper Jr. in "The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828-1856" (page 46) notes, “ William Freehling has convincingly shown that concern over slavery underlay the nullification impulse in South Carolina.” Manisha Sinha in "The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina" (pages 9-10) writes, “It was neither periodic bouts of lunacy nor an adherence to the tenets of an archaic republicanism but, rather, the unfolding of the political ideology of slavery during the nullification crisis, that can best explain the sectional extremism of antebellum South Carolina. ... But Carolinian planter politicians’ attempt to nullify federal tariff laws encompassed a rousing vindication of slavery and the interests of a slaveholding minority in a democratic republic.”

Perhaps you can explain why Cooper and Sinha are wrong. I suggest you actually obtain and read the books before you respond.

You apparently (as I’ve said before) haven’t read either Freehling or Ellis, yet you feel free to offer your own opinions on their intentions by focusing on a few quotes that others, actually familiar with the works, have provided you. The full context of the works shows clearly that slavery was related to the Nullification Crisis. For EXAMPLE, Freehling writes on page 255, “Put in simple terms, the nullification crisis was produced by two acute problems: protective tariffs and slavery agitation...”

Your claim that Calhoun is “but one man”, which is true. However historians present him as the leader and representative for others as Ellis, Freehling, Nivens, Sinha, Cooper et al demonstrate. For EXAMPLE, Freehling (page 255) says, “But leading nullifiers, reflecting the lowcountry’s dominant mood, never ceased reiterating the slavery issue was always in the background and often at the center of their concern.”

Certainly, as has been shown, any number of other sources, could be added to the footnotes, but in my judgement the current footnote referring to Ellis and Freehling is relevant. You have yet to produce any reliable secondary source that contests the article’s statement that “even the tariff issue was related to slavery”.

As far as who is messing up the article, I think this current exchange proves my point. The subject of the subsection -- which you started -- is “Davis, Stephens and Switching” and yet you have veered off into talking about Calhoun and Lincoln. On Calhoun, you don’t even start with where the previous discussion left off, but throw in the Ford quote as if I hadn’t already responded to it. On the actual topic you have still failed to provide any reliable secondary source that contests either McPherson or Cooper -- until you do, the McPherson cite is sufficient. My educated guess is that you will not find any reliable sources that argue that Davis or Stephens were consistent in their arguments and emphasis before and after the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please speak to the issue of primary sources are only to be used for explanatory material, and are "not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion".

Because all Ellis and Nevin offer are Calhoun quotes. If all those authors make the case, they should be cited, not books which only provide the Calhoun quote.

I'll respond to the rest later.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Northshoreman's position that the Confederacy "launched a war" is strictly one point of view, a view that Northshoreman happens to agree with, and, Cedwyn, any use of historical materials and books to the contrary I don't believe will survive in this article, as other contributing editors such as Northshoreman, from my experience, will keep them out. J. Thomas Scharf first responed to Admiral Porter's book on the Secretary of the Navy's comments on the set up at Fort Sumter and the "need" to get South Carolina to take the first "shot". Scharf proceeds to meticulously document how the southern states were so unexpecting of a war, they they were in the middle of making payments to the U.S. for confiscations of properties. Also, none of the resigning Naval officers took their vessels over to the south, yet another pointed commented on by many after the war as to the unexpectation of war by the South, who presumed to be left alone in peace. The point of all this is that no honest historian would say such a thing as that the Confederacy went about intentionally launching a war. An honest historian would want to document in this article the mature and well-rounded view from all sides and from many historians. Therefore I disagree with Northshoreman's position, as well as his uncompromising edits to this article. I call on Northshorman to leave this article alone for a period of time, a year perhaps, to give the article a chance to be corrected. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis said, after Confederate defeat, that it is not always the person who fires the first shot that starts a war. Davis ordered Beauregard to cannonball Fort Sumter after Lincoln sent a messenger to tell Governor Pickens of South Carolina that food (but no weapons) would be sent to Fort Sumter. Apparently, Davis didn't want to be blamed for starting the war. And given other post-war statements he made, he also wanted to put some distance between his post-war reputation and his role before the war fighting for Southern alleged rights to slavery in the territories.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jim

Would you be so kind as to address the discrepency in sourcing guidelines I've outlined in my reply to Tom North Shoreman? Thanks!

98.232.243.146 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stephens/Davis Quotes

Please stop rearranging stuff. It makes the discussion crazy long and incoherent. Material is posted repeatedly and the discussion is disjointed and hard to follow, replies were attributed to the wrong topics, etc. This is much more condensed and readable. Leave it as it is.

Here is the "striking contrast" Stampp was talking about:

Before Confederate defeat, Stephens said 'African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization ... was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.'

After Confederate defeat, Stephens said that those who believe that "African Slavery" caused the war were "but superficial observers," and that the real causes of the war "lay in the organic Structure of the Government of the States ... between the supporters of a strictly Federative Government, on the one side, and a thoroughly National one, on the other."

Stephens did change his story from describing slavery as the cause of the war to saying that slavery was not the cause of the war. I think we can move on from this issue, as the paragraph in question carefully references and reflects exactly what Stampp had to say, and what Stephens had to say.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can move on. I still maintain that neither Stampp nor McPherson conducted the comparitive analysis required to establish that Stephens and Davis did a 180 on their casus belli views (the statement made is not explicitly and directly supported by the source). All Stampp does is contrast the Cornerstone Speech with A Constitutional View and McPherson simply proclaims it so, without even citing specific post-war texts; he does not demonstrate its truthfulness. Even the quote he presents from Davis regarding slavery casts property rights as the overarching concern.

Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of both Stephens and Davis speaking fervently to the question of state sovereignty before the war. I've listed several of Stephens' under "On Switching." Here's a handful from Davis' farewell address to the U.S. Senate, January 1861 :

It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited

So even a cursory examination of just one of Davis' pre-war writings yields many, many mentions of states' rights, secession and sovereignty. It is simply not accurate to say Davis or Stephens changed their tune regarding the reasons for war after the fact. Regardless of what McPherson claims, we have, in Stephens' and Davis' own words, ample evidence to the contrary. The statement should not stand.

peace

Cedwyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Note 1: Stephens reversed himself on whether slavery was the cause of the war, not on whether states had rights.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed Stephens reversed himself on states' rights. What I said was that Stephens repeatedly cited states rights as a casus belli, up to and during the war. That he "reversed himself" can only be true if he had made no mention of states' rights as a cause of the war/secession going into it. But he does mention them as a cause of the war/secession. A lot. See the section titled "On Switching" for examples.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Note 2: As to whether some of the best Civil War historians didn't do enough research, or weren't good enough, I don't know how to begin to respond to that one.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not what I said. I have stated repeatedly that the citations do not support the claim made in the article, which is that Stephens and Davis pulled a complete reversal on their rationales for war. Stampp and McPherson may well have done all the research possible and painstakingly compared each and every pre-war writing and utterance with the entirety of the post-war material. But that is not what is referenced in the pages cited for the claim. Therefore, the claim should not stand without a stronger citation than "because McPherson said so" and some implied (Stampp's own phrasing) departure between only one of Stephens pre-war speeches with only one post-war treatise.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Note 3: As to Davis, the point isn't whether he said that states had rights, but rather that he led the Southern fight for slavery in the territories before the war, and developed elaborate Lost Cause arguments for separating slavery from states' rights after Confederate defeat. The following quote from Jefferson Davis, from his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Part 1 Chapter 10, stands in sharp contrast to his pre-war pro-slavery statements:

The reader of many of the treatises on these events, which have been put forth as historical, if dependent upon such alone for information, might naturally enough be led to the conclusion that the controversies which arose between the States, and the war in which they culminated, were caused by efforts on the one side to extend and perpetuate human slavery, and on the other to resist it and establish human liberty. The Southern States and Southern people have been sedulously represented as "propagandists" of slavery, and the Northern as the defenders and champions of universal freedom, and this view has been so arrogantly assumed, so dogmatically asserted, and so persistently reiterated, that its authors have, in many cases, perhaps, succeeded [pg 78] in bringing themselves to believe it, as well as in impressing it widely upon the world.

The attentive reader of the preceding chapters—especially if he has compared their statements with contemporaneous records and other original sources of information—will already have found evidence enough to enable him to discern the falsehood of these representations, and to perceive that, to whatever extent the question of slavery may have served as an occasion, it was far from being the cause of the conflict.

Again, not what I said. I provided example of Davis speaking very eloquently on states' rights as the justification for secession and war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_War&action=edit&section=35

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Note 4: To say that Stephens and Davis talked about states' rights before the war is misleading because many states' rights arguments used by secessionists when secession began (including South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession, among many others) were in the form of the right of Southern states to defend slavery. After the war, quite a few former secessionists tried to separate states' rights from the slavery issue. The "striking contrast" in question was between many complaints about slavery when secession began, and many attempts to deny that slavery caused secession and war after Confederate defeat. Some of the best Civil War historians did extensive research on these issues, and they are the references for the paragraph in question.

Then cite the part where they did the comparative research as the source, not them merely asserting that Stephens or Davis did a reversal of position. So McPherson says so. Good for him, but that doesn'r make it so. He doesn't even cite specific texts. And only one author is cited in support of the assertion - that hardly makes it consensus opinion, as required by site sourcing guidelines.

And what is misleading about saying Stephens and Davis championed states' rights before the war? Either they did or they didn't. And no; it did NOT always have to do with slavery. As in Davis' farewell address to Congress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_War&action=edit&section=35

The whole premise, out the window in just one address. Either find more than just McPherson who believes this, or cite the actual comparison work, or remove that piece from the article.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Lincoln Quote

Also, the long version of the Lincoln quote that includes the phrase about slavery as "somehow the cause of the war" was added in a reference, so that should no longer be an issue. There is no question that Lincoln said what he said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The long version, which allegedly is not about slavery, is as follows:
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865 - Here Lincoln states, "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

Note: The article quote is 'slavery was "somehow the cause of the war,"' with the part in double quotes representing Lincoln's exact words. It doesn't have the quote as "slavery was somehow the cause of the war," so the quote is correct as is.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; there is no question that Lincoln said what he said. And he did NOT say "slavery was somehow the cause of the war." He said "this interest was somehow the cause of the war." People shouldn't have to read citations to get the full story; citations are for reference. And you and I both know that the casual reader isn't going to check references.

Seriously; what is the objection to accurately quoting Lincoln here? You already changed it once, but then put it back. And I saw your note about how the quote is valid, even though slavery is outside the quote marks. But to say that he said slavery when he did not is not accurately representing his statement, whether or not the word appears inside the quotes.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Calhoun Quote

This leaves the Calhoun quote as the remaining issue. The point to the Calhoun quote is not over whether the tariff controversy was related to only slavery and nothing else, or whether Calhoun and others said any number of other things in addition. The article only states that the tariff issue was "related to slavery," and this is true regardless of what else was related to the tariff.

Yes; the article states that, but the citation does not directly and explicitly support it, as per site guidelines for sources.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The following Calhoun quote, cited in the article, should answer any remaining questions about Calhoun and the tariff:

"I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness."Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does answer that question, but we've been over that. If we could find a stronger citation that the Nullification dispute related directly to slavery (as implied by the article), we wouldn't have to niggle over exactly what Calhoun meant. Imo, all Calhoun is saying is that slavery, and the agrarian economy the South developed around it while it was an uncontested institution, have placed the Southern States in the position of a minority. If Calhoun's words are pegging slavery as the cause of anything, it's their minority status, not the tariff. He says the tariff is "an occasion" (evidence, a marker) of the unhappy state of things (their minority status). It doesn't even pit slavery as related to the tariff of 1828.

I also still maintain that the article needs to be more neutral on this subject, as it casts the relationship between slavery and the tariff dispute as a causative one, not as the tangential afterthought that it was. To wit: the paragraph starts with "Almost all of the inter-regional crises involved slavery". Then it lists several disputes of which slavery was unquestionably the root. Then it mentions the tariff dispute, with the justifying coda of "even the tariff was related to slavery." I hope we can at least agree that in the interest of accuracy and a NPOV, the mention of the Nullification crisis could be improved.

People look to context to derive meaning; the way the Nullification dispute is presented in the article casts slavery as much more central than it was for that dispute. Most of what I've read indicates that slavery wasn't a focus for the nullifiers until 1834 or so, i.e., after the tariff compromise was settled. Even then, it only became related because slavery and tariffs are both states' rights issues, especially in the eyes of a faction fearing an economic threat from tyranny of the majority, as Calhoun and his supporters did. The relationship between slavery and the tariff is that they both fall under states' rights concerns; there is no intrinsic connection between the two issues. It's kinda the way ketchup and salt are "related" by virtue of being wonderful on french fries.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

This quote makes it clear that Calhoun interrelated slavery ("the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States"), the tariff ("taxation"), states' rights ("the reserved rights of the states") and slavery in the territories ("their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes"). So slavery, the tariff, states' rights and slavery in the territories were clearly related, according to Calhoun.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize, don't you, that you are essentially arguing that the mere mention of a word makes it the focal point of any statement in which it appears? That is the logical construct within which you're working - "Calhoun said "peculiar domestick [sic] institution" and he used the word "cause," so he must have been saying slavery was the cause."

But that's not how it works. Language is far more sophisticated than all of that; that's the beauty of context and how words can mean certain things at some times and other things at other times. Tell you what, though - why don't you break down Calhoun's statement as I've done below and demonstrate how it means what you say it means? How about it? Hint: he doesn't even use the word "territories."

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Note 1: Whether the tariff was "directly" related to slavery, and whether the relation was "causative" or "central," go beyond the scope of what the article has to say about this. Also, the Calhoun quote doesn't say much about the South's "minority status," or whether it was states' rights that related the tariff issue and slavery.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Goes beyond the scope? Then get the statement out of there if the scope of the article doesn't allow for proper explication of its nuance. Sometimes, abridgement is fine; sometimes it's not. In any event, why go 'round and 'round and 'round over this instead of finding something besides one indeterminate quote to support the claim? Put an end to all of this right now by citing some other source claiming the Tariff of 1828 and the ensuing dispute were related to slavery.

Because, I'm sorry; Calhoun DOES NOT, in that quote, claim that slavery is related to the tariff. Not even close. And the statement is absolutely all about minority status:

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

The tariff is the immediate flashpoint reflecting the unhappy state of things, but not the real cause of them.

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

because of slavery and the agrarian economy the South developed based on it,

has placed them (the Southern States) in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union

the Southern States are in the minority in Congress, where tariffs are levied and appropriations granted

against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness."

If the reserved rights of state sovereignty can't protect them against the whims of this Congressional majority, they will either have to rebel or take whatever the North throws at them.

That quote is pure, unadulterated fear of tyranny of the majority. That is its focus. And if you read the rest of Calhoun's thoughts and writings, it is very, very clear that being the Congressional minority was a paramount concern of his.

Please also address the question of the Calhoun quote being from 1830 and it being widely held that the nullifiers didn't really start on about slavery until 1833 or so. Please. And if we can't find something more definitive stating that the Tariff dispute of 1828-'33 or so was related to slavery, that statement should not stand.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Suggestion for article length

Two new issues as of 2008-12-18 as proposed by Cedwyn:

Because of the concern expressed by Cedwyn over article length, add two new sub-articles on the tariff and secession / states' rights.

As for secession and states' rights, a detailed sub-article on this issue would be extremely redundant. The alleged rights of Southern states that were violated by the North, according to what secessionists said when explaining their reasons for secession, include:

• The election of Lincoln, because he said that slavery had to be put "in the course of ultimate extinction."
• The failure of Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
• Northern opposition to the Dred Scott decision.
• Northern opposition to the expansion of slavery into nationally owned territories.
• Northern opposition to a Southern desire for a slave code for the territories, which is the issue secessionists used to split the Democratic Party between North and South.
• Northern agitation against slavery.
• Northerners encouraging thousands of slaves to "leave their homes" via the Underground Railroad.

In short, a long list of issues that are already mentioned in the article would need to be mentioned again.

Hi, Jensen; perhaps you misread my post? I didn't suggest adding anything to the article. What I suggested was that the "Causes" section of the Contents shouldn't list only slavery. I went on to say that I realize editing the text to conform to a new "Causes" header listing multiple causes would be unwieldy. So my ultimate suggestion was to simply edit the Contents list, like so:

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

2 Overview

That way, the "Causes" section of the article could stand pretty much as is, no major re-work/additions required, and the Contents list would be more neutral POV/accurate.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

---

Now for issue number two. In order to reduce article length, Cedwyn would have us remove a very short description of all the financial advantages the North gained when Southern Senators were no longer in the Senate to block proposed bills for a transcontinental railroad, a homestead act, an internal revenue service and other financial changes that were crucial to funding the war.

The problem to removing mention of these thing, apart from the fact that to do so seems random, is the fact that the overall article length would be greatly increased for the worst possible reasons. The material to be added is material that is less important, and the small amount of material to be removed describes measures that were very important in helping the North get money for the war, and money is extremely important to any war.

I don't care about article length; I'm all for as many words as necessary to accurately convey the complexity of this issue. I've just seen the concern about length echoed by many and that paragraph seemed a good, easy way to lose a few words. And I didn't suggest adding anything, except a few words from Lincoln. Please re-read the post in question.

The paragraph I suggested be excised is fairly irrelevant and kinda out of context as it appears. Seriously, what is the value of stating that secession enabled the North to pass whatever they pleased in Congress? I mean isn't that kind of patently obvious? When the opposition drops out, the remaining team has a wide open playing field? You don't say! And land grant colleges helped the North win? Really?

And how is some blurb about tangential financial stuff more important than, say, using the actual quote from Lincoln a la "the interest constituted by slaves was somehow the cause of the war" instead of "slavery was somehow the cause of the war"? The argument against changing that "quote" has been article length. So we have enough words to spare to include what amounts to a tautology, but not to accurately quote Lincoln? Really?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Note 1: A lot of non-historians don't know that the war had financial implications that both helped fund the war effort and were important long after the war ended. The details of this are not obvious to everybody.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure people recognize that. But if the statement's value lies only in "here's stuff that helped the North win," how necessary is it, really? Lots of things aided the North's effort; that secession enabled them to enact lots of neat stuff in Congress hardly seems like a necessary piece of information for understanding this historical event.

Since article length is apparently quite a concern, prioritizing information for inclusion is important. Interesting and insightful the paragraph in question might be, (I disagree - it's fluff, imo) surely those pixels could be better spent on much more pertinent details, clarification of nuanced points, etc.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Do you understand that when you say that the best Civil War historians didn't do enough research, or aren't good enough, and we should listen to you instead, that kind of argument sounds very unlikely?Jimmuldrow (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To what are you referring here? And do you realize you said this exact thing up above? What the hell; I'll repeat myself, too. I have stated repeatedly that the citations do not directly and explicitly support the claim made in the article, which is that Stephens and Davis pulled a complete reversal on their rationales for war.

Stampp and McPherson may well have done all the research possible and painstakingly compared each and every Stephens/Davis pre-war writing and utterance with the entirety of the post-war material. But that is not what is referenced in the pages cited for the claim. Therefore, the claim should not stand without a stronger citation than "because McPherson said so" and some implied (Stampp's own phrasing) departure between only one of Stephens pre-war speeches with only one post-war treatise.

---

The tariff was much more important three decades before the war than in 1860-61.

That's kinda my point; the tariff of 1828 predated the civil war by some 30-odd years so why even mention it if you're not going to explain the bigger picture of tariffs as a states' rights issue? why say that "even the tariff was related to slavery" when said "relationship" was about as meaningful as a one-night stand?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

---

The tariff was much more important three decades before the war than in 1860-61.

That's kinda my point; the tariff of 1828 predated the civil war by some 30-odd years so why even mention it if you're not going to explain the bigger picture of tariffs as a states' rights issue? why say that "even the tariff was related to slavery" when said "relationship" was about as meaningful as a one-night stand?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

More on "Misinterpretations"

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.

Why don't we use the full quote, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln quote (from his Second Inaugural Address) has been added to the reference for clarity.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not use what he actually said, instead of paraphrasing as "slavery was somehow the cause"? because Lincoln didn't say that slavery was - his quote doesn't even use the word "slavery." he said "These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

I think it was Stampp who pointed out that historians have been debating the precise meaning of that phrase from the get go.

Anyhoo, as we agreed previously, paraphrases are interpretation/original research and should not be presented as what was said.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stephens, background

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

from his speech:

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

...The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"�the real "corner-stone"�in our new edifice.

he is not saying that slavery is the cornerstone of the confederacy. the cornerstone he refers to is the idea that it is the negro's place under God's plan to be inferior to the white man. the result of this divine inferiority is that slavery is a natural condition. but slavery is not the cornerstone here; the cornerstone is the idea that the races are not equal. the error he mentions others making is assuming equality of the races, i.e., not questions of slavery vs. emancipation.

in fact, that whole paragraph is of questionable neutrality.

67.171.145.192 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

more on Stephens:

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

Northern free states had no slavery, or at least (in the case of New Jersey) very little. Slavery was not the "cornerstone" of the free states.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Most Northerners also believed in racial inequality. The CSA did not have to secede to protect that. Neither is really the cornerstone - both are what the cornerstone (and the foundation) rests on. Anyway, the speech demonstrates that he then considered "states rights" to be neither the cornerstone, nor the foundation, nor the base for the foundation --JimWae (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

well, if neither is, but both are, then the statement "Stephens said slavery was the cornerstone" is inaccurate.

deciding that he meant slavery, or that it demonstrates a disinterest in states' rights, is interpretation and original research. there is obviously debate about what the cornerstone speech means, exactly. it was also live, extemporaneous and hastily transcribed. please read the section titled "Stephens, Real cornerstone... the assertions put forth, that he called slavery the cornerstone and that he pulled a reversal of position, are NOT directly supported by the citation, as required by wiki source guidelines.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The Old South's master race theories were its justification for slavery.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

that would make slavery secondary to racial inequality, yes? i.e., slavery cannot be the cornerstone if it was borne of and justified by racial inequality.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 14:19, 14 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)

Still, the Cornerstone Speech makes it clear that slavery, justified by the Old South's master race ideology, was the "cornerstone", and that the smaller issues mentioned up front were not. McPherson agrees with Stampp's interpretation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stampp doesn't seem to think so - even he only claims that it is implied and if you read page 3 of McPherson, all he does is quote the relevant passage - he doesn't even try to assert that Stephens said slavery was the cornerstone (bold is McPherson, italics Stephens):

The old confederation, known as the United States, said Stephens, had been founded on the false idea that all men are created equal. The Confederacy, in contrast, “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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So neither McPherson nor Stampp directly supports the assertion made, as neither of them states with certainty that Stephens said slavery was the cornerstone, or even that he must have meant slavery. The best we get is "implied." If even McPherson, obviously a big believer in the "lost cause" theory, won't assert it decisively, that means something.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

That sounds like a very unlikely interpretation of the Stephens quote, and of what Stampp and McPherson had to say about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the Stampp citation. It says right there, in the pages cited, that it is "implied by" Stephens' speech, not that "Stephens said." and what i wrote of McPherson came right from page 3. are you suggesting that i have not used their own words?

And please do riddle me this: if it is widely held that Stephens declared slavery as the cornerstone, why do both Stampp and McPherson seem reluctant to claim that directly, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't?

So the citation as it stands doesn't support the assertion - Stampp did not say Stephens said that and he does not provide a breakdown of how and why ACV is a departure from the views expressed in the cornerstone speech.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position...you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Again (and again and again and again and again), the wording follows what Stampp had to say very, very, very closely. There was not much to take out of context, as the little that Stampp had to say about Stephens' speeches that was omitted from the article would not agree with your opinions if it were added, or add any context that would help you out. Which is why, again, it would seem that you write page after page of complaints that are repetitive and seemed to have no point the first time. What you say about "original research" sounds like denial, displacement, projection.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i only repeat myself when replies indicate that my point has missed its mark. i see the bit about the cornerstone has been changed...cool. when did that happen?

we still don't have an analysis demonstrating how and why a highly structured colloquy in which Stephens was responding to specific questions and topics represents a divergence from opinions expressed in an impromptu speech, the transcript of which is very rough and tumble.

as for projection, etc., that's just silly. the guidelines say that sources cited should directly and explicitly support the claim made. what we have here is the article making a claim (ACV is a departure from TCS) with a citation that is more or less "Stampp said so." Is any old assertion made by a cited author taken at face value? Why don't we cite a source that does a comparitive analysis on the cornerstone speech and ACV, delineating the change in philosophy? in order to establish that it was a changed position, can we at least agree the comparison should be made between the entirety of his antebellum comments and ACV and other post-war commentary? how does comparing one impromptu speech to one post-war perspective establish that it was a profound shift in rationale?

i don't understand why you take such offense to making the article stronger

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stampp break

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?

Ok. Stampp said that "slavery was the chief cause of the sectional crisis" when summing up Stephens's Cornerstone Speech. So shoot me for paraphrasing a bit. Is the meaning clear enough? I think so.Jimmuldrow (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

what page of the book does he say that? if that is Stampp's assertion, that page should also be cited in support of the article's claims. the citation as it stands does not support its assertions. we need analysis demonstrating how he reversed his position.

See the article reference for page numbers.71.225.223.143 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've examined the article reference (#12), pages 63–65 and 152 - 153, and have repeatedly pointed out that all those pages contain is excerpts of A Constitutional View and Stephens' cornerstone speech. Beyond that, Stampp does not say that "Slavery was the chief cause of the sectional crisis." He says that it is implied in the cornerstone speech. World of difference between "it was" and "it was implied."

Stampp did assert that A Constitutional View represents a departure from the cornerstone speech. But his book is largely a collection of historical writings, with little in the way of analysis. i.e., He does not demonstrate how it is a departure, which is necessary to establish the premise that it was a departure.

In the introduction, he says this, though:

As one reflects upon the problem of causation one is driven to the conclusion that historians will never know, objectively and with mathematical precision, what caused the Civil War.

…If after more than a century the debate is still inconclusive, would not the historian be wise to abandon his search for causes?

So even Stampp maintains that the verdict is out on the causes of the war, which further calls the articles' neutrality, with its undue emphasis on slavery, into question. To wit:

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

And we are still left with citation #12 not directly supporting the claims made: that Stephens said slavery was the cornerstone and that A Constitutional View represents a departure from earlier Secessionist thought.

I also don't think it's valid to compare the cornerstone speech (impromptu, less-than-adequate proofing) to A Constitutional View and declare it amounts to a reversal of position. The source cited does not support that assertion, in any event. The ACV was in Colloquy format - he was responding to specific questions and topics. It is not at all unusual that his answers tend towards the states' rights arguments there, as that was largely the line of questioning. it doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a reversal of thought. we need outside sources to establish that. merely quoting the two texts involved requires additional analysis to reach the conclusion presented.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

---

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. It's also true that A Constitutional View is a colloquy format - he was responding to specific questions and topics. It cannot be deduced that this represents a reversal of his earlier positions, especially since he does mention states' rights concerns in the cornerstone speech.

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

a) 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

Template:RFChist

I read the Stampp passages, and they don't exactly support what this article says. In particular, I don't think we should say "slavery was the "cornerstone", since racial inequality was the cornerstone. We could say something like:

According to Kenneth M. Stampp, during a March 21, 1861 speech Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens implied that slavery was the main cause of the sectional crises, in contrast to the consitutional argument he made after the war.

Thats about all the sources can support. "Sectional crises" can maybe be replaced with something like secession, civil war, or rift between the north and south, I'm not sure about that part. This book says that the south had been saying the secession was about states rights, but in the cornerstone speech Stephens showed that it really was about slavery. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The nuances are still to small for me to see, but I replaced the part in question with direct quotes from Stampp. Please don't demand that an already very long article be further bulked up by demanding any more direct quotes because of very difficult to see nuances. So far there has been a huge amount of words and very few, if any, arguments that are as meaningful as some people seem to think.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only person to miss the alleged "nuances" that some see. McPherson and Stampp show that the link to "cornerstone" and "slavery" can be safely assumed simply by reading the quote that has been discussed. On page 11 of "This Mighty Scourge" McPherson writes, "Anticipating Alexander Stephen's speech proclaiming slavery the 'cornerstone' of the Confederacy, members of a South Carolina family... [stated] that'now a stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost.'" Stampp, in "The Imperiled Union" (page 264) quotes an earlier historian (the context shows Stampp agreed with him) who said,"The Southern Confederation was bound to fall, because it was founded, precisely as Alexander H. Stephens had claimed, upon slavery as its cornerstone." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a fascinating assertion by McPherson. How can someone sit in anticipation of something they do not know is coming? A: They can't.

nov 6, 1860 - lincoln elected

nov 20, 1860 - "a stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost," (in a letter from William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball)

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=112248&bheaders=1

dec 20, 1860 - SC passes the resolution on secession

march 21, 1861 - cornerstone speech

The South had not yet even seceded when Mr. Grimball made those remarks, so they couldn't have had anything to do with Stephens' speech.

I really have no idea what to make of the quote you mentioned on page 264 of The Imperiled Union. The quote Stampp uses is from William P. Trent and is attributed to Cannibals All! by George Fitzhugh. But the Fitzhugh work makes no mention of Stephens or "confederacy" or "cornerstone." Can someone help me out here? What am I missing?

In any event, here is what Stephens said in an Atlanta speech on March 12, 1861 (Apostles of Disunion By Charles B. Dew, page 16) in which he states that the Confederate Constitution had:

"solemnly discarded the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians, that all men, of all races, were equal, and we had made African inequality and subordination, and the equality of white men, the chief corner stone of the Southern Republic.”

So it is not at all certain that Stephens meant slavery as the cornerstone. Most evidence indicates he means "racial inequality" as the cornerstone. Historians can draw all the conclusions they want about what he meant, but that doesn't change what he did and didn't directly say. And we have yet to find a source in which Stephens directly asserts that slavery itself is the cornerstone. But that part of the article has been edited anyway, precisely because it cannot be established that he said slavery was the cornerstone.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

On "Switching"

It seems unfair to limit Stampp's broad views on this subject to one narrow evaluation of one opinion of Confederate politician, I'm inclined toward Stampp's position on page two of his And the War Came (1950):

“ "Without the 'peculiar institution' there could have been no proslavery or antislavery agitators, no division on the issue (whether real or fictitious) of the extension of slave territory. The northern attack on slavery was a logical product of nineteenth-century liberal capitalism. The southern defense of slavery -- by planters deeply concerned about both their profits and their capital investment -- was just as understandable. Enmeshed with slavery were other economic differences which contributed to sectional hate. ”

Partisans of the south have a long and storied tradition of wanting to avoid talking about slavery in public venues. It strikes me as ironic that some modern writers make use of similar popular aversion to the discussion of a subject as distasteful as human chattel ownership in favor of a romantic, sanitized and sanctified version of events. In the passage above Stamp makes the end of slavery an inevitability from a northern view, because it was the natural extension of liberal capitalism ("slavery is unfair business practice, and bad for the marketplace"). Because of the southern perspective of liberal capitalism ("what I do with my property is not the government's business; my Africans are my stock, after all"), southern planters felt equally self-justified. All this IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to BusterD. I think that is one reason we should be careful. IMHO, Stephens probably went out of his way to avoid saying the exact quote "slavery is the cornerstone" on purpose. That's why we shouldn't put those words in his mouth.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but now the part 'Stephens ... switched to a "states' rights interpretation of the Civil War." doesn't seem to be supported by the reference. It said he summarized that position, but it doesn't say that he switched. The switching part is on page 152. I think we're getting close, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Switched" changed to Stampp's "striking contrast" quote. Change "getting close" to - be more honest in the future. It's not any closer with that many quotes than before. You can admit you're wrong now; we shouldn't need that many exact quotes. "getting close" is more dishonesty in addition to the fact that the quotes prove you're persistently wrong to begin with, and it's flagrant. It is impossible to assume good faith past a point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The "striking contrast" remark by Stampp was previously in the reference. You really are trying much too hard not to understand that you're wrong.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like what the best historians have to say is beside the point. Going by what they say is the way Wikipedia works. Start understanding that, whether you like it or not. Start to be honest about what's there, whether you like it or not.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly...let's be honest about what's there. This is not nuance - either Stampp said the things the book is cited to support or he didn't. And all Stampp says is that the cornerstone speech is "in striking contrast" to Stephens' post-war constitutional interpretation (ACV), i.e., he compared only two of Stephens' works. He does not use the word "switch" or even state that any of it is a reversal of position in general.

Wiki guidelines state that cited sources should directly and explicitly support the claims made. The only claim supported by the Stampp citation is that the Cornerstone speech stands in striking contrast to the ACV text. It does not say that this represents a departure for Stephens' rationale, pre- vs. post-war, on a broader scale.

The idea that one pre-war speech stood "in strking contrast" to one post-war interpretation does not mean anything necessarily "switched." For ACV and other post-war works to represent a "switching" of Stephens' story, we should find little to no mentino of states' rights in Stephens' antebellum thoughts and writings. But here is a passage from the cornerstone speech that speaks to states' rights questions:

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...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.

In his first bid for state legislature, he was on the "State Rights Ticket." (Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private By Henry Cleveland, pg. 60)

From a letter to Lincoln, January 1860:

A Constitutional Union party pledged to the enforcement of all laws, and in its platform fully recognizing the paramount State sovereignty, seems hopeful to some men...

State sovereignty like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is inalienable -- priceless -- above all consideration, expediency or necessity.

Sovereignty here in our states is no longer in the crown, nor is it in the agent appointee: but it is in the states.

Rereading your valuable letter, I note this question, "What of state rights is there remaining after all of the enumerated concessions to the Federal government?" I answer Sovereignty that is everything. I now have in my hands as Attorney and Trustee, the estate of three girls who have sixty thousand dollars each. This is my admission that I do not own the estate. The three departments of the General Government do not constitute the union -- remove the states and the agent is nothing.

That's at least three samples of Stephens' pre-war states' rights rhetoric. The letter to Lincoln demonstrates a clear focus on states rights and sovereignty, pre-war.

So to say that ACV constitutes a "switch" from his earlier thought is simply not accurate. And Stampp doesn't use the word "switch" anywhere, nor does he assert any change in Stephens' perspective beyond noting that the Cornerstone Speech stands in contrast to ACV.

For the assertion that Stephens "switched[14] to states' rights interpretations of the war" to be valid, it is necessary to compare the sum total of his thoughts and writings, pre- and post-war. Stampp does not conduct this analysis, nor does he assert that Stephens "switched," "changed," "altered," or even "updated" his views on the war. All Stampp says is that Stephens' Cornerstone speech stands in striking contrast to his post-war constitutional interpretation (ACV).

That is to say, the assertion as it stands is a paraphrase or extrapolation of Stampp's words not directly supported by Stampp's words, which is not valid for citation, per site guidelines.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Endless vanishingly small "nuances." Words that never mean what everyone else thinks they mean. And when that many quotes prove you wrong, someone else, out there somewhere, other than yourself, is "getting close"???????Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you really are going way too far and need to stop now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed my mind. This will remain slightly paraphrased to shorten a bit. The meaning is much, much more than clear enough, and very, very closely follows what Stampp had to say.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I changed my mind is that very slight paraphrasing is less awkward an bulky without any change in the meaning. Also, you were dead wrong, completely wrong and trivial to complain about "switched", since the reference clearly specified that Stampp said that the latter Stephen's speech was a "striking contrast" from the former. That was time for an honest person to admit that you made a mistake. If you'd rather die than admit you're flagrantly wrong, this is no longer an honest discussion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a tremendous change in meaning between "Item A is a striking contrast to Item B" and "Item A means Stephens wholesale switched positions by the time of Item B." the former is asserted by Stampp; the latter is not.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stephens, real cornerstone, please stand up

Did Stephens refer to racial inequality, slavery, or both as the "cornerstone"? Which did he mean?

Again, there's heaps of ongoing discussion above about the ACW article making this claim:

"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]."

The only citation provided for both assertions (that slavery is the cornerstone and that he reversed his position later) is the text of Stephens' cornerstone speech and A Constitutional View. The assertion made requires an analysis and comparison of the two texts to reach the conclusion presented. Simply listing these texts side by side does not support it. Per the citation guidelines, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made."

First, it's worth noting that the cornerstone speech was extemporaneous and hastily transcribed. Its fidelity is unverifiable.

I maintain that racial inequality is the "foundation" he speaks of. from his speech:

The [US] constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution [slavery] while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea

The "opposite idea" of "assumption of equality of the races" is "the races are not equal." Also, since he cites the "assumption of equality of the races" as an error, it is pretty clear that he means racial inequality as the cornerstone. The "natural condition" of slavery flows from this cornerstone of racial inequality.

From his "What I really said" remarks:

The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races.

...This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed.

I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

He uses very similar language as in the cornerstone speech, speaking of natural laws and orders of things, God's plan, etc. He very clearly meant that racial inequality was the cornerstone, and this later writing ("what I really said") is not a departure from what he says in the cornerstone speech 4 years prior.

Here is another excerpt, from the City Hall Park, Augusta Georgia Speech, Sept. 1, 1860, 6 months before cornerstone speech:

“Upon our peculiar institution, so far from being unsound, unsafe, or dangerous on all the essential principles upon which it rests and its permanency depends, he is on the side of reason and truth. He holds that the negro is of an inferior race –that he is not and cannot be a citizen of the the United States—that he was not intended to be embraced in the Declaration of Independence – that subordination to the white race is his natural and normal condition...

These are the great principles and truths up on which our system rest, and upon which it must depend on the fields of our battles with the public opinion of the world.

…in the vindication of these great fundamental truths, relating to negro inequality and his natural subordinate position, which lie at the foundation of our social fabric”

There is enough material of direct quotes from Stephens to conclude that he meant racial inequality as the cornerstone. I think the body of Stephens' collected speeches and writings clearly indicates he did NOT mean slavery. For the passage in the article to stand, we really need a citation of historical analysis demonsrtating that he meant slavery. Because the reference cited provides only the cornerstone speech, the meaning of which is, obviously, up for debate.

And we can go back and forth about the meaning of the cornerstone speech all day, but I don't know that we're getting very far. And if we do not have some historical analysis about why/how he meant slavery, the article assertion that he said it was the cornerstone is interpretation/original research, which is not a supportable citation for wiki articles.

It is also not supported by the documentary evidence we do have, e.g., the multiple speeches and writings in which he heavily emphasizes the inferior status of the negro, etc. That is always his primary point of focus on the issue - the natural order of the negro's place as the inferior being, etc.

So now what? I really hope people reply with more than just "you're wrong." Please provide some link, discussion, citation about how or why you think I'm wrong.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 04:36, 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)

Friendly cautionary note to Cedwyn: don't throw any citation gauntlets down in front of a professor of historiography. Dr. Jensen will always have more sources and better sources. And an inherent bias toward professional historians (a proud bias acquired in the hard furnace of the scholarly history publishing industry). You can disagree with the good doctor, but you better have your sources in order beforehand. He could probably give you great stuff to support your position too, but defending something's your responsibility. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 15 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

Ford (he) states on p 123 "there was no significant dissent [ in SC] from the belief that slavery must be defended even if it meant war." Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lacy's a guy? Wow. FYI that passage appears on page 183. And it's discussing the first secession crisis, circa 1847 - not exactly extrapolatable to the Nullification crisis.

Cedwyn (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Template:RFChist

Nullification break

Previous discussion above, under "Calhoun" heading.

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

Footnote 15 in full:

As early as 1830, in the midst of the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun identified the right to own slaves as the chief southern minority right being threatened: "I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness." - Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987), page 193; Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816-1836. (1965), page 257; Ellis p. 193. Ellis further notes that "Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states’ rights. At various points in their careers, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open-ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners’ wishes."

This certainly demonstrates that both Calhoun and Ellis certainly, at the very least, believe that "nullification" and "slavery" are "related". Have you actually read the Ellis book? Freehling on the page cited also makes the same case when he asks, "The nullifiers decision to fight the abolitionists indirectly by contending against the tariff raises the obvious question, Why didn't South Carolina meet the slavery issue head on?" He provides a detailed answer that you might want to look up.

Rather than more of your ORIGINAL RESEARCH, perhaps you could contribute the analysis of some reliable secondary sources that actually support your position that the Nullification Crisis had nothing to do with slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with citation #15, thank you very much. Please read the rest of what I've written on this subject.

Reference 15 points us to the Calhoun quote from 1830, on pg. 193 of Ellis' book. Page 257 of Freehling's book also provides the Calhoun quote.

The Calhoun quote, in and of itself, is not enough to establish that the entire nullification crisis was about slavery, as claimed in the article. And I don't need to have read Ellis' entire book to know that the pages cited don't prove the assertion made.

Have you read the whole thing? You might find pages 5-8 interesting. Ellis discusses the lengthy backdrop of nationalist/federalist disputes and states' rights arguments that, even at the time of the tariff crisis, were decades old. He also has this to say:

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.

If Calhoun, by Ellis' (the cited source) own words, was only protecting slavery indirectly, guess what? Slavery could not have been the central issue of the tariff dispute.

related to != cause of

Again, what Ellis is saying is that Calhoun et al ultimately brought slavery under the long-standing banner of states' rights. He did not say that the tariff crisis was about slavery, just that both slavery and tariffs are related to states' rights. There's a world of difference.

The constant and consistent reference to fear of being in the minority is also totally relevant here - that was Calhoun's overarching concern. Every five slaves gave the South another person for census purposes. If you feared your state could be taxed like crazy because you were the minority party, wouldn't you fight to keep that extra representation? i.e., It is not enough to say "the tariff dispute was all about slavery" without looking beyond the surface.

I know you'll just dismiss this analysis as "original research" and that's ok. Because I'm not trying to get an assertion put into the article. I just want the article's citations to meet site standards, which they currently don't. "Original research" is entirely valid for such discussions.

peace

Cedwyn (talk)Cedwyn

---

I never said it had "nothing" to do with slavery; I'm merely arguing it cannot be reduced to being "about slavery," as presented in the article. That is one extraordinary claim and it needs more than one indeterminate quote from Calhoun to support it.

Here's what LK Ford had to say in Origins of Southern Radicalism:

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.

Also dismissive of slavery. So that's Ellis and Ford against Freehling. So, the cited sources (Freehling and Ellis) don't even agree with each other and Ford seems to agree with Ellis.

The reference cited does not meet site guidelines for sourcing.

Cedwyn (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

I've restored my text to the solid block in which it was originally presented. Your repetitious and wandering style of writing tends to make following the arguments presented difficult.

Here’s the problem with your entire argument. You state, “I'm merely arguing it cannot be reduced to being "about slavery," as presented in the article.” Actually, what the article says is “even the tariff issue was related to slavery”. Being “related” hardly reduces it to being strictly “about slavery”. Your claim “related to != cause of” is just flat out wrong.

---

Ellis, Freehling, and Ford may very well disagree on some points, but all three find that slavery is "related" to tariffs and states' rights.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is "just how related?" and the fact that Ford and Ellis seem to downplay slavery seems to indicate that we are far from consensus opinion on the matter. The assertion that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" does not adequately reflect the complexity of the issue or the nature of the relationship. I also think it invites readers to make the wrong conclusions.

Here is the full statement from the wiki article:

Almost all of the inter-regional crises involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African Slave Trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, 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])

That's not loaded presentation? To claim that "all inter-regional crises involved slavery," rattle off 3 debates that unquestionably were all about slavery, and then lump the tariff dispute in the same group...don't you think that's a tad misleading?

Calhoun's immediate response to the tariff (the Exposition) doesn't even mention the word "slavery." Slavery only entered the debate later, under the states' rights defense, as another reason to protect states' rights vis a vis the federal government. Yes; the tariff dispute was related to slavery but only because both slavery and the tariff related to states' rights.

Kinda the way ketchup is related to salt in that they're both wonderful on french fries.

Anyhoo, to quote statements made years after the Tariff of 1828, i.e., after the debate had been raging for quite some time and the positions of the respective parties had time to evolve (i.e., fold slavery into the platform) does not properly establish the relationship implied by the article. There are tangential relationships and there are causal relationships - which one is suggested by the article? Can't we at least agree that it is less-than-neutral and could be improved?

And there is still the question of the sources cited seeming to disagree with each other, with one of them tremendously downplaying the importance of slavery in the dispute. Which leaves us only Calhoun's quote, the meaning of which is up for debate. The claim needs to be sourced better, regardless.

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Break

PS John Niven in John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union" (p. 197) also makes the same case regarding the Calhoun quote:

Finally, the root of the nullification crisis was exposed. What had begun as a reaction to a depression in the cotton states, a slump that had been particularly severe in South Carolina, had rapidly resolveditself into an all-encompassing fear on the part of a majority of the planter elite class that the growing industrialization of the North, expressing itself politically through the majority will, would eventually demand emancipation, heedless of the social consequences. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And here's Calhoun in a letter from 1832:

The Tariff Bill was late last evening ordered to the 3d. reading in the senate with many amendments all going to increase the burden on us. Every southern member voted against it including the South West, with the exception of the Senators from Louisiana. The question is no longer one of free trade, but liberty and despotism.

The man obviously held a wide range of opinions and to characterize the entire tariff dispute as "about slavery" is disingenuous. That part of the article should not stand, certainly not without more than one Calhoun quote as the citation.

Here is some more of Calhoun's own words on nullification, from Feb. 15, 1833. Neither slavery nor abolition is mentioned once. Lots of talk about sovereignty, the relationship of the states to the federal government, etc., though.

http://www.pbcc.edu/faculty/MIDDLETS/Nullification.pdf

peace

Cedwyn (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Non-responsive and inaccurate. As already pointed out, the article does not claim “the entire tariff dispute as ‘about slavery’” -- you are making a strawman argument. And the article does have “more than one Calhoun quote as the citation” -- it has the text written by both Freehling and Ellis that interpret the significance to the quote. Plus the discussion page shows that Ford and Nevin could also be added as sources. Also William J. Cooper Jr. in The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828-1856 (page 46) notes, “ William Freehling has convincingly shown that concern over slavery underlay the nullification impulse in South Carolina.” Manisha Sinha in The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina (pages 9-10) writes, “It was neither periodic bouts of lunacy nor an adherence to the tenets of an archaic republicanism but, rather, the unfolding of the political ideology of slavery during the nullification crisis, that can best explain the sectional extremism of antebellum South Carolina. ... But Carolinian planter politicians’ attempt to nullify federal tariff laws encompassed a rousing vindication of slavery and the interests of a slaveholding minority in a democratic republic.”

Since you have chosen to go the RFC route, perhaps it is time for you to take a rest and see if anybody actually shows up to agree with you. Your additional ORIGINAL RESEARCH in which you try to divine Calhoun’s intentions is irrelevant since it will not go into the article unless it is supported by a secondary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Ford passage will you be citing? Perhaps this one, from page 134:

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.

The Ellis text directly quoted goes on (in the book) to revert to the balance of power/states' rights POV and goes on to state that the Calhounites didn't even really focus on slavery until after 1833. The passage in the article very strongly implies an original, fundamental relationship between nullification and slavery, even though slavery wasn't brought into the fold of states' rights until much later.

Ellis' own words call Freehling's assertion into question.

mea culpa, though, for the "related to"/"about" misreading of mine - you get into these discussions and sometimes, things get carried away. but you have to admit, the article is loaded in its presentation and the subject far more nuanced.

Peace

Cedwyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedwyn (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm not trying to get anything in the article.

Cedwyn (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

You are ignoring the context of the quote you provide from Ford. In that section he is speaking only of the debate WITHIN South Carolina and he explains why slavery (or even the tariff) was not part of that debate in footnote #95 located here [2]. The relevant issue to the wikipedia article we are discussing is why nullification was raised in the first place. This can be found in the first full paragraph on page 125 located here [3]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an engaging reply and the references. We are speaking of Calhoun (SC) and the Nullification crisis following the Tariff of 1828, which was by and large centralized in SC. SC was the only state to nullify. How is it out of context to quote Ford's commentary on that debate? And the explanation of why slavery and the tariff was not part of the debate doesn't change the fact that they were not part of the debate, which is kinda my whole point: the role of slavery in the Nullification crisis was peripheral and the article's presentation of it misleading. If your point is that the Nullification dispute in other states revolved around slavery, that's a whole other discussion. But it does sound interesting.

The second footnote you cited lists 5 conditions that led to SC's vote for Nullification; they are not presented as origins of the debate itself.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

To say that the tariff dispute was related to slavery doesn't state or imply that the tariff was about only slavery and nothing else, only that Calhoun saw some connection between the tariff and slavery issues. As written, this is accurate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

it is implied, though, from the surrounding context of the "even the tariff issue was related to slavery." it is very strongly implied.

Almost all of the inter-regional crises involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African Slave Trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, 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])

why is the parenthetical even there? it rather comes across as an attempt to justify the inclusion of the Nullification crisis with the list of other disputes that were rooted in the question of slavery. if the relationship between the Nullification crisis and slavery was abundantly clear and not at all in dispute, there would be no need for the coda. None of the other conflicts listed gets a parenthetical; why does the Nullification crisis need one?

this statement also appears under the heading of "Causes: Slavery," which furher invites readers to draw conclusions beyond what is expressly stated.

beyond any of that, the paragraph is a massive run-on. can it be prettied up at all? a good start would be to open the "Causes" segment with an examination of the differences between the north and south, instead of launching into the slavery litany. then it could discuss tariff disputes, the evolution of states' rights/nullification/secessionist ideology, starting circa 1800. maybe talk about how the country, being but a quarter-century old, was still working out details about the balance of power between the states and the federal government - it wasn't nearly as delineated back then. then continue with the role slaery played in north/south tensions. but the article very non-neutrally emphasizes slavery at the exclusion of other issues as the cause of the war. presented in that context, "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" is very misleading. we both know that casual researchers/readers will not very deep to suss the nuance inherent in this topic.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Potter

As the Southern historian David Potter pointed out (in The Impending Crisis), causes other than slavery (states' rights, the tariff and rival routes for a transcontinental railroad) became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it. Sub-articles are the place for more details, since the article length is over 90k.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

exactly!!! causes other than slavery became entangled in the slavery issue and were intensified by it. becoming entangled or being intensified by slavery does not nullify the other causes or diminish their impact.

so, even Potter agrees that there were numerous causes, and Stampp asserts that "As one reflects upon the problem of causation one is driven to the conclusion that historians will never know, objectively and with mathematical precision, what caused the Civil War...after more than a century the debate is still inconclusive..."

so why does the "Causes" section of the article list only slavery?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Yet again, states' rights and the Nullification Crisis are mentioned. It seems as if you don't want to understand some very obvious things, perhaps from being very opinionated? For details, see the related articles.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? i merely pointed out that the article, as structured, only lists "Slavery" under the heading "Causes." are you contending that is false?

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

the only states right at issue was the right to have slaves in the federal territories. What else? Tariffs were not a cause of the war (the SOUTH wrote the tariffs that were in effect in 1860-61). the the only RR issue was whether the eastern end would be in slave territory or free territory. meanwhile the Republcians were very serious about the eventual end of slavery; they expected the South would realize it was a money losing proposition and simply give it up eventually. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

there was a huge states' rights issue at question: whether or not they could secede from the union. buchanan and Lincoln stated they recognized no such right. Lincoln maintained the garrison at Ft. Sumter, perceived by SC to be their sovereign territory. so they fired on it, as Seward predicted they might:

"The dispatch of an expedition to supply or reinforce Sumter would provoke an attack and so involve a war at that point."

Secretary of the Interior Caleb B. Smith reasoned:"If it shall be understood that by its evacuation we intend to acknowledge our inability to enforce the laws and our intention to allow treason & rebellion to run its course, the measure will be extremely disastrous and the Administration will become very unpopular.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/collections/papers/history5.html

so there's a lot of information and historical documents indicating that Ft. Sumter was not at all about slavery, but whether or not SC's secession would be recognized. then the North invaded VA, the rest of the seceding states ratified their pronouncements, etc.

the states who came late to the secession party weren't on about slavery - it was unquestionably about the power structure between states and the federal government, a debate that had been raging for a good half a century or so with the whole eploration of the nullification concept. we are talking about a group of states that had only just begun being a part of something larger than themselves. you know - that whole "Federalist" debate that started before we even had our constitution, the addition of the 10th amendment in 1791, virginia and kentucky nullifying the alien and sedition acts, all that good stuff.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

And why did South Carolina want to secede? To prove they could, as an exercise in constitutional theory? No, they attempted to secede for the same reason the South had defeated Douglass and broken the Democratic party, earlier the same year; to get a Slave Code for Nebraska. If they couldn't do that, they were going to take their ball and go home. That is, after all, why McPherson begins with the Charleston Convention; I see we now mention it - we should link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why any state wanted to secede doees not change the fact that the fight over Ft. Sumter was squarely a question of the states' right of secession. Lincoln retaliated because he wanted to send a clear message that states did not have that right. Beuregard didn't open fire because of slavery and Lincoln didn't respond because of slavery. It was about secession and Union, as rjensen said.

Also, if it was all about slavery, why did some states wait until hostilities broke out to secede? It wasn't because of slavery at that point - it was because Lincoln had taken the position of not recognizing a right to secede and forcibly keeping the states in the Union.

http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/statehood/ordinanceofsecession.html

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AR/

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/ncconven/ncconven.html#nccon3

http://www.virtualology.com/jeffersondavis.net/tennesseesecession.com/

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Content Listing Improvement

I think the article contents guide should list these three items under the heading "Causes", e.g.: Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Secession

1.2 Tariff/Nullification disputes

1.3 Slavery

I suppose the order doesn't matter so much, except that secession should be first, since it was the most immediate driver of the war, regardless of whatever philosophes motivated secession. The South chose to secede, Lincoln said that he recognized no such states' right and left U.S. troops on South Carolina soil, so the South fired on Ft. Sumter. Even Muldrow and Jensens have ceded this point:

"It's true that Fort Sumter was not fired upon because of slavery. Secession was the issue... Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)"

Why didn't you quote the rest of what I said?? It wasn't that lengthy.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to quote people, get it right. What I said was : It's true that Fort Sumter was not fired upon because of slavery. Secession was the issue. But what caused secession? What the best historians have to say is the same thing you see by reading through documents written by the secessionists themselves. It's easier to find secessionist complaints about slavery that omit the states' rights issue than to find secessionist complaints about states' rights that omit the slavery issue. See Causes of the Civil War for details. Read the article FAQ for more details. And the best historians do like to point out many inconsistencies with Lost Cause descriptions of causes.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I got it right. What caused secession is not relevant to whether or not Ft. Sumter was 100% about secession. That was the point I was making and so I only needed the part of your statement that dealt with that. You recognized that Ft. Sumter -- what really started the war -- was not about slavery, but whether or not states had the right to secede.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/1

"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)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#State.27s_Rights_Issue_Missing_from_Article

So the article really, really, really needs to not list only Slavey under "Causes." Obviously, the restructuring I proposed above is a tad unwieldy; the article edits required would take a while. So maybe it could just appear like this:

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

2 Overview

That way, the discussion of the causes and background could be left relatively intact, but the contents listing would then be both more accurate and more neutral.

what say?

I think it would also improve the article to mention that Lincoln agreed with some Southern philosophy:

Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan warned that whites and free blacks could not live together

From the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.243.146 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top would explain a great deal of the facts you're leaving out, both about the above Lincoln quote and many other issues. Reading all of Lincoln's letters and speeches would also be a good idea.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't expect that quote to be added. I just found the similarity in the wording interesting. But I do think the "somehow" quote should be presented in its proper form, e.g. "the interest constituted by slaves was somehow the cause of the war."

98.232.243.146 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

98.232.243.146 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Oppose This seems to be just more of the same arguments repeated over and over again in Cedwyn's numerous aditions to this discussion page. He has failed to obtain any agreement with his arguments, let alone a consensus that would justify the proposed change in the article. Furthermore, he has failed to produce any reliable, secondary sources to support his positions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

False. Several points I've raised have resulted in edits. I have also cited several texts in support of my assertions, as well as direct quotes from Stephens and Davis. Oh, and I'm not a guy, thanks.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Oppose The details are under "To Sum Up Answers to Questions About Misunderstandings" further on up. Long story short, this article is approaching 100k again. Somebody is like the Energizer Bunny of the Lost Cause.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So attempts at improving accuracy and quality of citations = "Lost cause"? How quaint. I thought Wikipedia strove to provide good info? This also begs the question: if my attempts at these edits is championing the "Lost Cause," how should we characterize the stubbornness with which my suggestions are resisted? If you want to contest my points, fine. Tell me with a straight face that it's entirely accurate and not at all misleading to only list "slavery" under the "Causes" listing in the Contents.

The "Causes" section of the article discusses a lot more than slavery; so why does the Contents listing only have "Slavery" under "Causes"?

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

Please do answer that and explain how it makes sense for the article to discuss way more causes than listed in the Contents.

Beyond that point, I'm requesting but minor edits, mainly asking for stronger sourcing. What, really, is the problem with that?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Article length

Keeping the article to a managable length seems to be a constant concern. May I suggest that this be excised:

As Southerners resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, secession later enabled Republicans to pass bills for projects that had been blocked by Southern Senators before the war, including the Morrill Tariff, land grant colleges (the Morill Act), a Homestead Act, a trans-continental railroad (the Pacific Railway Acts), the National Banking Act and the authorization of United States Notes by the Legal Tender Act of 1862. The Revenue Act of 1861 introduced the income tax to help finance the war.

It isn't really germaine to the topic and doesn't add anything to discussion of the Civil War.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

The "See also" part can be shorter if you write in two lines. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to remove Games from the "See also" list. Somebody got upset.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah...that hardly seems a necessary part of examining the war. I'm sure it's the subject of several cottage industry-type things, re-enactments, etc., but those are really neither here nor there when it comes to the analysis.

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Ironically a see also of games on the Civil War has more to do with the Civil War than the proposed deletion above. I have no heartburn with removing some game links. However, logically, this article is entitled the American Civil War. Why is there so much material in this article about other history, and not the war? Cedwyn's point is correct. Games or no games, Cedwyn's point is not really addressed. But on the other hand, Jimmuldrow does demonstrate a surreality about this article ... that is the nature of what a raw democracy can do to prevent corrections to this article. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A few sentences on the changes in Congress as the result of Southern secession certainly seems relevant. It is also relevant to remind readers of those areas in government where, before the war, Southerners still had an effective veto on government actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant, perhaps, although I obviously disagree. But necessary? Is it really more than an interesting sidenote?

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Northshoreman, I am hard pressed to understand what the War had to do with what Northern people did in their solely-owned Congress. Surley you would agree that this might, at best, belong in a political history, not an article about the war? The material, if that relevant, belongs in a history section of the United States for this time period. But as Cedwyn correctly demonstrates, it has nothing to do with the American Civil War. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

actually the North won the war and did so in large part by mobilizing their great economic potential. Exactly how it was mobilized is a critical part of the story because it was a decisive factor in the war, and everyone at the time and since knew it. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The details are under "To Sum Up Answers to Questions About Misunderstandings" further on up.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Provide the reason for your opposition here. It is too much to ask others to read through the lengthy material above and derive your thoughts. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this is very important information. We need more coverage not less. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be important, indeed, but important to the political history of the US, not the history of this war. This is an article on the American Civil War. Thus military history, combat, battles, armies and such should be the topics at hand. Rather ... it is a Radical Repbulican diatrabe on slavery. The only discussion of slavery in this article should be that which relates to the war: The use of slaves in the war, the propagandistic "freeing" of slaves to affect the course of the war, and things such as that. The actions of Northerners in their congress during the time that the CSA was independent, has no meaning to CSA history, and no real importance to the history of the war between the CSA and the USA. Cedwyn is correct, the short lines above have nothing to do with this article. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I Support the proposal by Cedwyn. That information has zero to do with Lincoln's war, and while its interesting U.S. history, its just off-topic. I have read through the long discussion above by Cedwyn. Thank you Cedwyn for all your discussion. Many of the editors for this article, by their own statements, are extremely biased in their perspectives on the history of the war. Frankly, it has been utterly amazing that a Wiki article could, in this day and age, be allowed to suggest and read as if slavery was the primary and virtually only "cause" of the war. The "lost" causes have been well articulated over time such that they are, in fact, not "lost". I've had many discussions with foreign military students at Command & Staff, who have pointed out the inability of many people within the United States to recognize properly the grievances of the Southern States. I recall that one fellow, a German officer, pointed out that it is normal human psychology for the "winning" side to be defensive in that manner, especially in an internal dispute and split. The sign of healing comes when both the loser and the victor can see all facets of what happened. We, in the United States, are obviously not there yet, as the control on the material in this article shows. Another problem in understanding the secession is that since slavery was constitutionally lawful, it was picked on as a major issue-in-point to demonstrate the unwillingness to obey the Constitution by the Northern States. It was an argument of convenience. Other issues were not as directly constitutional. So when the Southern States finally had enough, they foot-stomped the hardest on the most clear-cut violations of law by the Northern States, such as the failure to properly recognized slavery. Thus it gets the limelight. But your proposal, Cedwyn, shows that even the most mundane, the smallest, the most trivial and minor correction to even begin to hint at altering the rudder of this article will be met with the swiftest of opposition. Nonetheless, Cedwyn is correct. This article is highly skewed. Much of the content is entirely off topic. It is poorly written. It's organization is horrendous. Cedwyn has patiently and eloquently argued his points, and I certainly see no issued with this minor proposed edit. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unreal, Grayghost. As if people have ever gone to war over anything but power. Puhleeze! Yes; the South risked life and everything because they believed so much in slavery. Yeah...that makes sense.

P.S. - I'm not a guy, though.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Bleeding Kansas, NOT Ft. Sumter!

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.

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.

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?

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)