Talk:American Civil War
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 |
 | American Civil War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Please read the following FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) before posting comments. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the American Civil War.
Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research or undue weight to fringe theories.
After the war, some movements sought to advance Lost Cause interpretations, arguing that the Confederacy was not primarily fighting to defend slavery. While these have been popular in some quarters, the vast majority of historians do not support these interpretations, including best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter). Ironically, during the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, Confederate politicians openly presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. They mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say: "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 It is true that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both downplayed the slavery issue after the war began. As historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular, and Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. This is why in statements like the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, northern politicians argued they were only fighting to preserve the Union. Similarly, Lincoln's sole justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was military necessity. Holzer, Striner and Brewster note that Lincoln needed to portray the emancipation in a way that was acceptable to the border states and War Democrats. Q2: Were tariffs and states' rights similar in importance? (No.)
A2: No. The tariff issue and states' rights were factors, and there were others. These are all included in the article. However, no issue was as important as slavery.
The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. They defended both states' rights (such as secession) and federal power (such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), depending on which suited slavery with each controversy. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did subsequently portray the Confederacy as consistent defenders of states' rights. The tariff issue had been a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven, Lincoln had said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue. Q3: Did Lincoln propose to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? (No.)
A3: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction." Q4: Did Lincoln believe in racial equality? (Mostly.)
A4: In the context of the 19th century, being seen as a "Black Republican" abolitionist would be politically damaging. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, partly in order to deflect this charge. However, the things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many (including Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and his Cooper Union speech), while the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. While Lincoln and other northern politicians did not always advocate equality, this should not be given undue weight, especially as they wanted to give far more rights to black people than the Confederate politicians. At a July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago Lincoln said, "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist." Q5: Should the article refer to the states that allowed slavery as slave states? (Yes.)
A5: Yes, because their politicians referred to them as slave states, and because slavery related concerns were by far the major complaint mentioned by secessionists. After the outbreak of war, the slave states became divided between the Confederate states and the border states. Q6: Did some slave states fight for the North? (Yes.)
A6: Yes, the five border states. These states had less slavery and more support for the Union than the Confederate slave states. They opposed emancipation at first, but largely accepted the military need for it eventually. Kentucky and Missouri had more slavery than the rest, and had loyalties that were more divided than the rest. For example, Missouri's Governor Claiborne Jackson was a southern sympathizer, but was prevented from seceding by Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. Missouri saw some of the worst guerrilla fighting of the entire war because of its divisions over slavery. Q7: Should the title be American Civil War? (Yes.)
A7: Yes. The title "American Civil War" is used only because it is the most common international name for the war. It is used in order to be understood, regardless of whether it could be better. The title does ignore the South's point of view, and it ignores the fact that Central America and South America are also America, in a sense.
The other names should be mentioned, but not in this article. They are mentioned in Naming the American Civil War. The main article links to this. Q8: Did the South start the war? (Yes.)
A8: The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
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)
- The Bleeding Kansas controversy is mentioned in the article. The war began after the Fort Sumter crisis.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? It is called a Civil War for a reason. Citizens and not the military, were the first to strike blood. You people define the war as between capitals, like Washington and Montgomery or Richmond, when that was just a further development of the ongoing conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
You are also tunnel-visioning the issue to the Nullification Crisis, rather than looking at the very first expression of violence, without regard for the specific issue as determining the overall warfare. You also do not explain yourself. You simply repeat the propaganda of "official history", without even any details. Grade F in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- What source are you using for this?..and back off with the "you people" stuff unless you want to be ignored. Respect is a two-way street.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)- Agree with Berean...if you're going to come at us with some left-field revisionist history, you need to provide some pretty compelling references, rather than an argument of logic. Oh, and Berean, thanks for your work to clean the redundant copies of that post. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Berean...if you're going to come at us with some left-field revisionist history, you need to provide some pretty compelling references, rather than an argument of logic. Oh, and Berean, thanks for your work to clean the redundant copies of that post. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Rather, the issue should be convincing people that it is appropriate to pretend that Bleeding Kansas was not violence and that Ft. Sumter was violence. You are promoting the view of Southern aggression, without a look at the abolitionist subculture of the North that wanted to force the South into submission for its "sins" by enslaving other men. Well, if the Southerners were being aggressive, you might be right in their use of the Federal Government to enhance the cause of slavery by continually opening the Western territories to either stipulation for slaves south of some point, or referendums possibly resulting in new territories having slaves. The South is on record for being the aggressor towards Mexico, on behalf of slave power. You must admit that I am not revising history here, but that you are whitewashing the North's hostilities with the War by trivializing Bleeding Kansas and putting all the weight upon Ft. Sumter. It would be much easier to point out that Bleeding Kansas was caused by Northerners without Federal power (then in the Democrats' corner), but that the Southerner's response, also without Federal power (then in the Republicans' corner), was the attack on Sumter. Why focus on simply a fight against the Lincolnian Republican administration on part of Southerners? It is widely written of Abolitionist hate for the Democrats' promotion of slavery and the Whig failure to do anything about it. That's what John Brown was about. But no, go ahead and blame the South for aggression against the North and blame Lincoln's election for the War. Is this the revisionist compromise you are advocating? If it is, then it is just too late for reality. You already have all the academic references at your fingertips, but your perception of these events is skewed. Onset of hostilities couldn't be Sumter, because that was the second stage of violence. Otherwise, why even include Kansas? The Wikipedia presentation doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The War was not simply about secession and confederation, so South Carolina's move was a result of earlier events, just as John Brown and his ilk had inspiration from earlier events to justify their violence against Southerners and the Southern, Slave Power stranglehold on the Federal government at the time, with such people as Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan being the opposite of Abraham Lincoln. What kind of myopia cannot see that the status quo of the establishment changed with the election of Lincoln, but that the warmongers in the North were edging for Abolition long before, personified in Brown best of all? Furthermore, Wikipedia makes it seem like Missouri was the aggressor in the Kansas affair, when the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company went way out of the way to send its filibusters (to Kansas from places far away) to destroy the Lecompton Constitution by invading Kansas, a territory that had the support of the Democratic Federal administration. It fails to mention the natural westward movement of people into the location of Kansas from the east, before the Emigrant Society sent its filibusters. The whole reason to send emigrant filibusters, was because native Kansans (the ones who were there because they pioneered in the original Missouri territory which became carved into separate territories, for instance, Kansas) were promoting slavery in their own territory and were receiving recognition and support from sympathizers in the Federal government, many of whom were Southern, but the Presidents were Doughface Northerners. As it turned out, the "martyrdom" of Brown led to a Republican coalition stronger than people in South Carolina could tolerate, so that resulted in not only the Democratic evacuation from the Federal government, but the secession of the South. You want references from me about this? I have not edited any of these pages on Wikipedia, but they all point to this data I present here. I'm not looking at other websites or books at all. So, your demand that I provide "evidence" is fallacious. I'm finding all kinds of holes in the logic of Wikipedia's self-contradictory presentation of all this, so when you defend it, you must be the ones to substantiate your positions. All I asked for, was some people who have the materials, to repair the nonsense written here. I'm not about to do it myself, because this is all the trouble I am going to get into on behalf of Wikipedia. Because you promote and defend obvious falsehoods, you must have agendas. You are apparently profiting from misnomers and any request from you to improve these articles will result in nothing good, but maybe strengthened propaganda to make it worse. What a waste of time, but confirmation that your sentiments are nefarious. If you had a clue what it is I am stating, then we would not be going on like this. Your objection makes me not trust your objectives. Countering systemic bias is something you must have no interest in, as it would hurt your goals or comfort in lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
From the very beginning, you showed no interest. Any claim that I'm being unreasonable, is trumped. You simply didn't care to begin with to rectify anything. I'm pretty sure you don't want me touching the articles anyways, because it would interfere with your control of the information. So, I'm exercising prudence, rather than engaging in edit wars with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RANT. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I see lots of words and still no references. I've no problem with the concept of countering systemic bias, but if you'll read the wikiproject guidelines, systemic bias is countered not by yelling from a soapbox, but by finding legitimate references that balance the viewpoint. That is where you are lacking. All argument, no support. Oh, and as for your statement "You are apparently profiting from misnomers..." dang, profiting? From Wikipedia? Where was I when they were handing out the checks?AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is self-contradictory and you want references? Look no further than your own editing! It is thoroughly amusing to be pointed to the Soapbox guideline, when the very nature of the POV pushed in Civil War articles is against the letter of that "law" and certainly no where close to the spirit, but there are numerous loopholes you lot have exploited to push your anti-Southern bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Watch who you're calling "anti-southern"...I was born in Texas, thank you. Bottom line, provide references. Period, end of story, end of argument. Show me a couple of reputable historians or history-related publications that say what you're saying, and I'll personally add the material. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Article size is the main problem with adding anything big. The article is almost 100k. A brief mention of the 1856 Pottawatomie Massacre could be added, but then it would also make sense to add mention of violence (including a few murders) and massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri Border Ruffians. I don't think the overall addition would make anyone happy. The article currently links to Bleeding Kansas and John Brown for those who want to know more. If Wikipedia contradicts itself, give us some specifics. Other details of the Bleeding Kansas controversy that would appear to be anti-South if they were added include the 1855 Wakarusa War, the 1856 Sacking of Lawrence, the 1856 Battle of Osawatomie and the 1858 Marais des Cygnes massacre. Be careful what you ask for.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
At least you are now paying attention, Jimmuldrow. The other person is purposely avoiding the issues. Jim, since the fighting began under Buchanan's administration, it should be presented as the onset of the whole War. Sumter is nevertheless, a very important sequence in the overall violence and represents a major turning point in the status quo, for it was no longer a slippery slope for the Slave Power in Washington, but an indication that they were shut out by the Republicans and South Carolina took it the whole way. Of course, the Border Ruffians were an initial group of people who were fighting the rush of abolitionism in the South by outside forces and their fight with the Yankees--an appropriate name because they were from Massachusetts--characterized the rest of the War. Brown's people were operating outside the law, but according to their sense of moral dictates and had no government sanction, unlike the Border Ruffians, who were enforcing Buchanan's administration for Kansans. The major shift with Sumter, was the change in the Federal government, for it then did a completely 360 turn and that's probably why so many people look at Sumter as the beginning. Many want to denote the secession as a revolt against absolutism in Washington, but the conflict is on record as beginning with the invasion of Kansas by anti-slavery activists, who were just as wrong with the Federal government then, as the secessionists were five years later. It would be better to show the origins of the Civil War to be the failure of the Whigs to satisfy the people like Brown, who took matters into their own hands, just as the Southerners were later to do with Sumter. The outline of the timeline leading up to the war, should concentrate generally on Southern Manifest Destiny and Northern Abolitionism, which ended up clashing in blood at Kansas and being the whole reason why the violence wouldn't stop. In essence, it was no isolated instance, but the result of built up tensions that were fully flared under Lincoln. It is erroneous, but most Civil War presentations focus on Lincoln-Johnson, rather than Buchanan-Lincoln, as the nexus of all this. It was with the transition of Whig to Republican that the most fervent war cries were made. Brown was the voice of the newfound Republicans, for they considered the Whigs to be too lenient. All I'd hope for is a balanced POV on this. Lee refused to lead the Union Army because he knew that Washington was going to invade Virginia to enforce Republican legislation, just as Brown had attempted to force his sense of righteousness in Kansas. The shoe was on the other foot with Sumter, that's all. Brown's kind was in power then, although they were the ones working outside of Federal sanction beforehand. The dynamic of this shift should be explored more, but I hardly think that's a controversial sentiment to raise, unless of course, the people reading this are just Scalawag Union apologists from Down South. Let me tell the guy before you, that Texas ain't the place for born and bred Southrons at heart so much as he'd think. Republican Eisenhower was the product of Carpetbagger parents, just as the Republican Bushes are Carpetbagger oil men in Texas, although Bush 43 is somewhat of a Doughface like Pierce and Buchanan because of his mother Barbara Pierce. In any case, I wasn't wanting to alter any material myself on any of these articles, but just mention the lack of consistency with the POV being pushed about how the War went on. I also am not contradicting the majority of the material already at Wikipedia, only hoping that some of the myopia can be expanded and the focus to cover the period as between the Invasion of Kansas until the Fall of the Freemen. The structure could be done with three sub-periods, with the entrance of the Yankees to Kansas, to the secession of South Carolina, to the start of Reconstruction. There is the long series of events before Kansas and the long series which led up until 1965, but those are not as central to the War itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The side issue that needs to be explored, is the nature of the population of Kansas. If not for the Emigrant Society formed by the Yankees, Kansas would have remained Southron, with or without slaves. It was the Free-Soil movement which tried to make Kansas along the lines of the Northwest Territory, so now, most people in Kansas are 19th century German immigrants rather than American. This is important to understand the nature of the violence in Kansas. Even if the point of Kansas (as opposed to Nebraska) emerging as a territory of its own, was to provide more slave land, it does not erase the fact that Southrons were there first. The statements written about Kansas seem to overlook or diminish this, most likely because of the slave issue and the fact that the Northerners won Kansas through bloodshed, but not through legislation. Lecompton was a legitimate constitution by the first Kansans, regardless of slavery. It was deposed by the immigration of non-Kansans who have since steered the state away from its Southern and specifically Missourian origins, much like the origins of Arizona upon the Gadsden Purchase as an originally Texan offshoot. Arizona's first administrators were born in Tennessee and Kentucky, moved to Texas and they were chosen by the people who lived in Arizona, but that state is usually not accounted for as Southern outside of country music today, even though it has a whole lot in common with Texas. So, unofficially, places like Kansas and Arizona experienced their own forms of "Reconstruction", but due to the very short lifespan of their Southern origins, their identities are glossed over by subsequent migrants. Consider the current issues with Kansas and the teaching of evolution in public schools, vs creationism. Creationism would likely still be taught there if not for the Reconstruction of that place by German immigrants on behalf of Massachusetts people, who were all Unitarian Universalists and very liberal then, as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, more detail was added about Bleeding Kansas. It would add too much to the article length to add more, but there are links to a number of other related Wikipedia article. Wiki-linking makes a huge amount of detail easily available.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
About Games
Would anybody be upset if games are moved to List of American Civil War battles?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- A-Class military history articles
- A-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- A-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- A-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review