Talk:Battle of Fort Sumter

Article upgrade

I'm making an intermittent effort to get the article up to, hopefully, FA status. The French Article is already at that point, so I'm liberally stealing ideas from them, with my limited Francophone abilities. The French article lifted several images from the National Park Service websites. I confirmed by email today that all images there, unless otherwise noted, are public domain, so if anyone has any suggestions for prettying-up the article, we have resources. DCB4W 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

nothing happened the union won and no onw died only one fed horse died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.18 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonds of

restore bonds of what? In the first section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Machina (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were no casualties

The two who were killed, were killed after the surrender and are not considered part of the battle casualties. There was an accidental powder explosion during a gun salute.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties ≠ Mortalities. There were in fact wounded men during the battle. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but then why would there be a seperate number for wounded in the info box?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a separate number. Any figures listed are part of the casualties which include killed, wounded, & missing...that is an itemization of casualties.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual number of killed or wounded on the Union side during the battle were zero. Every casualty that occured in the fort happened after the surrender. Even the 5 wounded, which one died a few days later.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for that?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, where to begin? First Blood:The Story of Fort Sumter. by W.A. Swanberg. pg 322.

The only fatality of the battle was a horse killed on Morris Island.

Page 328.

This page describes the surrender, and the 100 gun salute that went wrong. A bit of loose powder was exploded and killed Pvt. Daniel Hough instantly. Five others were wounded and one of those five died a few days later.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

<==So you conveniently left out the part that describes the 4 that were wounded at Ft. Sumter during the battle on the same page (322) and directly preceding the sentence you quoted "by flying brick or pieces of shell, none of them seriously." Obviously, not zero as you claim...Swanberg is indeed a source for the 4 Union casualties during the battle. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Ok, I wasn't arguing wounded, only deaths, but if you want to include minor scrapes and bruises in the injury count, I don't care. And are you accusing me of Bad faith because your tone has turned hostile all of a sudden. I thought we were having a nice discusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the horse was Confederate. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if it was on Morris Island.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hostile? Bad faith?..er, no. Where does that come from? But I do see the problem..you are here to make an argument about no deaths during the battle...I haven't seen anyone arguing with you about that. You incorrectly labeled this section with a devout declaration that there were no casualties. Realizing that you didn't know what the word meant, I made a comment to help you out as well as any other reader who might be following along. But you persisted with this by declaring "The actual number of killed or wounded on the Union side during the battle were zero." Since the infobox has some wounded and the source has wounded listed that is clearly wrong. You omitted the preceding sentence which was kinda important and hard to miss. I think we are Apples/Oranges here..with my point being that there were wounded declared and that is what the sources say. Clearly, I'm not upset or I wouldn't have made the horse joke.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, no harm no foul. I usually consider casualties as deaths, and wounded as injuries, but you are correct on the terminology. So do we agree that there were zero deaths and four wounded?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except the horse!...(yes, I think we agree) Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions

Assertions in this article contradict the Fort Sumter article - particularly regarding casualties. There are also less details in this article about the events just before the battle than there are in the fort article --JimWae (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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.