Jump to content

Talk:American Civil War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:American Civil War

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Another wiki cheese-ology vandal (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 21 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL Template:WikiProjectWars

YOU SMELL LIKE TEH WIKI-CHEESE!!!!!~TEH LOLZ!

Maps

I have removed the current map in favor of the previous one. The new map is very confusing (no explanation for why Kansas is pink) and wrong (Nevada was not a state until after the war) and uses colors that are not in line with public perception (blue and gray are standard colors used to depict the conflict). Until an argument is mounted against the older map, the reversion should stand. (Full Disclosure: I created the former map) --Ampersand


Deaths in todays population?

"Those numbers are the equivalent of more than 5.3 million deaths and 9.2 million total casualties in the U.S. today." - removed this; seems like a strange thing to do to give numbers when the percentage figure has alread been stated. At least it shouldnt go in the intro, maybe further down in the article Astrokey44 01:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't much care for this infobox. For one thing, it just has too many flags. We should just pick two (either the two used at the beginning of the war, or the two at the end). Links to Flag of the United States and Flags of the Confederate States of America can be provided for anyone who wants more information. Also, the color scheme isn't very pleasing to the eye. What about something more like the one at War of 1812? --JW1805 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

When is the turning point?

Was the turning point Gettysburg, Antietam or what? Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, do your own homework! —Cleared as filed. 22:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

See Turning point of the American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Depends on who you ask, I have heard Gettsyburg, Sharpsburg, even Vicksburg. (the case for Vicksburg being that once Grant took Vicksburg the Blockade could finally take effect, and runners had a tougher time getting through)

Combatants as listed in the warbox template

Considering that this was a civil war, like the American Revolutionary War, shouldn't the warbox list the combatants as being the United States versus something like "Confederate Rebels" or "Southern Rebels." The American Revolutionary War article lists the conflict as being between "American Patriots" and the British Empire, not the United States versus the British Empire.

I understand the history of the Confederacy and the desire to legitimatize it as a political entity, but the fact of the matter is that it was never a recognized government, just as the American government was not fully internationally recognized until after the War of 1812, really. Just as it would be silly to characterize the War of Independence as being between the United States and Great Britain, I think that it is inaccurate to characterize the American Civil War as being between the Confederate States and the United States.

If nobody offers any insight into this, I'll change the template soon.

See American Revolutionary War Talk:American Revolutionary War to see the origin of this discussion.--AaronS 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that the South already had a coherent state organization in the federal system, which was at the time even more powerful in relative terms than it is today. The Confederacy established a government with all of the trimmings of a normal government, mostly mimicking the United States. We have an article under Confederacy... describing its organization. While the United States and most of the rest of the world did not acknowledge the Confederacy at the time, I think on Wikipedia, in order to avoid POV, it is best to used the self-ascribed label--perhaps a footnote can explain that this might not be considered a "real state." But isn't POV to ascribe conditions definitively anyway? Also "rebels" is perhaps an even more dicey term because of the different historical associations it has in this case. Tfine80 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Those who supported the Confederacy were rebels, because they supported the rebellion against the United States. There is really nothing POV about that, since a rebel is any person who rebels. While the Confederacy did have an established state structure, it basically copied that of the United States, as you note. While it is true that the fledgling United States, during the American War of Independence, were not as strong or well-established as the Confederacy was during the American Civil War, American rebels were still citizens of the British Empire, and Southern rebels were still citizens of the United States. During the former, the United States were viewed internationally as colonies in insurrection; during the latter, the Confederate States were viewed as states rebelling against a federal government.

I understand the desire to give legitimacy to the Confederate States of America as a historical and political entity. I believe that the rules for "recognition" are arbitrary, but the line of demarcation is rather clear, for the most part. The Confederate States were never recognized by anybody, save supporters of the rebellion, as a legitimate government separate from the United States. It is vitally important to treat the CSA as a political entity, but it should be done in-depth in the article, and not prima facie in the warbox.--AaronS 01:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think your suggestion has any hope of success. It doesn' t matter who recognized the Confederate government, as the opening paragraph says: "...the Confederate States of America, a coalition of eleven southern states that declared their independence and claimed the right of secession from the Union in 1860-1861." That's what the term "Confederate States of America" means, that's what the Union was fighting, so that's what should be in the infobox. --JW1805 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, they were recognized by Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But that's not the point. And it's not about giving them "legitimacy." The point is that this is what they called themselves. And it's a lot easier to label them that and discuss why they might not be considered a real state than it is to come up with our own label which we will never find consensus for. Why start a fight about what to call them if you can just insert a footnote saying that most countries in the world did not recognize them. Tfine80 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Something missing?

Shouldn't there be a section in the "Division of the country" section on the North? Nowhere in the article does it list all the Union states. Seems odd. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Somehow I doubt that this article is truly unsourced, given the large amount of books and other references, any number of which may and probably have been cited. I defer to HLJ and others here, but I, for one, think that the unsourced tag is absolutely unnecessary and would suggest that it be removed. --Martin Osterman 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Units

Not sure if this is the place, but, can we devise reference to notable units of the war? I'm thinking, in particular, 54h MA Colored Volunteers, Pickett's division, 69h New York, Jackson's "Foot Cav", 71t PA Vols ("CA Rgt"), the like. Comment? Trekphiler 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is turning into too much of a kitchen sink to include an ever-expanding list like this. If you want a separate article like List of ..., go ahead, but it would be more interesting to write/improve the articles about the units, not merely list them. Hal Jespersen 13:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Populations

I think the whole population (everyone, civilians and soldiers) of the Union and the Confederacy should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.19.75 (talk • contribs) 06:34, December 10, 2005 (UTC)

Advantages of the North

I'm deleting the parts about African Americans and Immigrants and putting those under the Population Advantage. Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to U.S. Civil War?

Given that there have been civil wars in several American countries, shouldn't the title be changed to something more accurate? Markb 10:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm not familiar with civil wars occuring in other "American countries" -- the term's a contradiction in and of itself since America is made up of states (and America is a country). --Vortex 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
He's probably referring to the use of American to apply to the two continents, not the U.S.A. Although there may be a tiny degree of truth to that, "American" used without a qualifier (North, South, Central) is almost universally understood to mean the U.S.A. I also cannot think of any other conflict that could be confused with the American Civil War. Some name like the "South American Civil War" would not be possible under the definition of Civil War anyway. And since there are probably 1,000 articles pointing to this name, I don't think any change is justified.

Let me see, how about:

Salvadoran Civil War

Paraguayan Civil War

Columbia

Guatemala

Chiapas

All 'American' civil wars. To describe the US civil war as 'American', is confusing and inaccurate. If I refered to 'The European civil war', the 'African civil war' or the Asian civil war, which conflict would I mean? Wikipedia is an encylopidia used globally, authors should not assume users will have the same view of the world as themselves. As to the other articles, I thought that a 'move' also changed those references? Markb 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is that the American Civil War article should be used instead as a list to list all Civil Wars that have occurred in America? I would disagree with that, since each civil war is referred to by the name of the country that it happened in (e.g. Mexican Civil War). See, though America may refer to a continent, most people don't go for American Civil War if they're looking for a civil war in Columbia. Instead, they're going to look at Columbian Civil War. The name before the war gives an indication of where it happened, which is the primary reason that I don't agree with you. Give me more convincing and clear-cut evidence and I'll reconsider. (As for the suggestion that this is not a 'global' thing... Google "American Civil War" and see how many articles in that search turn out to be for wars other than this one. I think that you'll pretty much find that scholars around the globe call the civil war that happened in the United States the "American Civil War".) --Vortex 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as named. While I agree that the name "American Civil War" isn't as accurate as it could be, it's the most common name of the war. We're not here to improve the names people use, but reflect their current use. --A D Monroe III 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We already have an article called Naming the American Civil War. If Mark can actually find a documented source that makes this criticism, he can add it there. Tfine80 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of Naming the American Civil War, so now understand. To Vortex My only suggestion was to rename to U.S. civil war,if you want to make a list of civil wars in America, go ahead. As to the concept of "the name before the war gives an indication of where it happened", then U.S. is far more accurate than just America, in the same way that English Civil War is more helpful than European Civil War, Northern Hemisphere Civil War or Global Civil war - get the idea? Markb 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)]
My apologies for taking your idea the wrong way. :) I've been locked into finals at my university and have become a bit fuzzheaded due to the copious amounts of information I'm trying to cram into my brain in a limited amount of time. I think the U.S./America question could be debated for years to come, truthfully, even though I'm not quite sure why it is the way it is. I only know that most scholars have chosen to name it the American Civil War, and I tend to follow precedents. :) I think that part of it is the fact that people shorten the name (they refer to the United States of America as just America), and the colloquism has stuck since then. --Vortex 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to the following scenario:

  1. Keep the article American Civil War without any name changes.
  2. Create a new article American Civil War (disambiguation) that points to the original article and any other articles people may think can classified as "American" Civil Wars.

This suggestion is in keeping with the Wikipedia tradition of using the most popular name for an article and using disambiguation articles with alternative names when there might be any confusion. Hal Jespersen 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea Hal Jespersen . I hope people don't think I'm on some kind of mission to erase the word "American". My eyes have been opened recently when I suggested to my son and his school mates to look on Wikipedia when doing school work ( they are 14 yrs old). If I say 'Kennedy shot', they think Im taking about a minor footballer (soccer to some) who plays for Wolverhampton Wanderers has just been killed! To them the 'civil war' refers to the English civil war. They *do* understand, having school-friends from Brazil and Mexico (they at at school in London, england), that "america" has several meanings. If there is one thing that an encylopedia *should* be about, is leaving a source of unambigious information for future generations, untainted by the prevailing orthodoxy of the time.

Markb 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'no one really uses "American Civil War" to refer to anything other than the American Civil War'. Well I do, so that's just proved your theory false, hasn't it? As I've written before, if you want to create a new entry with a list of American civil wars, go ahead. I'm concerned with the name of *this* entry.Markb 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

America/American is used to mean USA probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of times in the English Wikipedia, reflecting its ubiquitous usage as such in English. Meanwhile it is used to refer to "the American continent" (a minority geographical classification btw) in a handful of places most of which are probably contained within the title of the article on the OAS. And yet every day someone else comes along to help prevent that evil gut-wrenching soul-crushing ambiguity by trying to replace all of the former usage. Yeah right it's not a crusade. Here's an easier approach: North America/South America/The Americas. Teach your kid those. problem solved. 69.108.48.80 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
There are, at the time or writing, 867,919 articles in the English Wikipedia. You state that at least 200,000 of these articles contain the use of America/American to mean USA. I doubt it, but look forward to your proof, something I doubt we'll see from an anonymous poster. Markb 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure that's what I "state"? maybe you should look again. But indeed adding 175961[1] + 53089[2] give us 229050 candidates. So I'm rather confident we can find tens if not hundreds of thousands of uses of the term therein in the manner described. 69.108.48.80 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's calm down. I think we're missing the point of an encyclopedia. Yes, American English could be improved, but we're not going to improve it here. Historians and history books most often refer to the war in question as the American Civil War, as does the public using Wikipedia. Perhaps there is little justification for using that name, but it's used anyway. Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to correct human knowledge, but to reflect it. The names of the Indian Wars and American Revolutionary War could be equally improved, but right or wrong, those are their names. When the public stops using these names for these wars, we must also stop using them. Until then, we must use them. --A D Monroe III 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Following a link from the request for comment page I posted some comments on Talk:Naming the American Civil War. Perhaps the article should be Civil War (United States of America). This pattern might eliminate a similar issue for another country. --Gbleem 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO the name of anything on wikipedia should be what the most common usage is in the language of the wiki (en for en of course, etc.), regardless of what may actually or academically be considered "correct." An encyclopedia is meant to be a useful reference, not to obfuscate and confuse by the use of some sort of convention that has been arrived at by committee. I also posted a comment on Talk:Naming the American Civil War, but here goes on this one as well: American is used the world over, in its variations in the particular language, when one wants to refer to a U.S. citizen, it is also used in the adjective form to describe things from or about the U.S. So calling it the American Civil War should not be a big deal. I say leave it as is and have everything else redirect here. --Easter Monkey 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As an interesting observation, I just noticed that on the Manual of Style National varieties of English subsection that American Civil War is the specific example used to illustrate when American English should be used...--Easter Monkey 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Countries have internal designations and external designations. In the U.S., "America" and "American" refer to U.S. interests first and the matters of the continents in general second. Despite how awkward that might seem in another dialect of English, that is simply the way it is and the U.S. will name its conflicts and other such matters accordingly. If there is any real problem with this, it's the attempt to unify the dialects of English into one Wikipedia section. No one seems to lodge any complaints about the sensibility of naming a conflict "The Nine Years War."

  • A civil War can be defined as a war that occurs between two or more factions within a country itself. As far as I know, the United States of America is the only nation that referrs to itself as 'America', so I really see no competition for the name 'American Civil War'. Firestorm 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Latin library?

Someone just edited in an external reference to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/civilwar.html, which is a pretty interesting chronology of the war. Browsing it casually, I can see that a lot of the material came from Wikipedia (uncited), which would normally make it a bogus external reference, but it is organized in an interesting way. Does anyone know what this site is supposed to be? If you go to the top-level URL, you get a lot of Roman history references, but nothing to lead you to the American Civil War topics buried beneath. Just wondering who/why ... Hal Jespersen 16:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

KIA?

Can somebody name the last man killed in the war? (Include it?) Trekphiler 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't see a) how you verify a name or make a case for one person or the other or b) how it would especially notable anyway. --Easter Monkey 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple articles here--will eventually need to split them

There are at least 5 articles here, and they will eventually have to be split. This is such a huge topic!

  • 1. Causes of Civil War. It already has its own article, and this section is in no way integrated into the article. So it can be merged into main "causes".
  • 2. Battle History, which is what this covers.
  • 3 Other military topics (logistics, manpower, technology, naval)
  • 4. Homefront issues, USA and CSA. Politics, Economics, society.
  • 5. International affairs, diplomacy
  • 6. Long term implications
  • 7. Bibliography and maybe historiography.

Rjensen 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an overstatement to suggest that this article is primarily focused on the battle history; there are many additional topics included. It is interesting to note a parallel set of articles on Wikipedia: American Revolution is a broad set of topics and American Revolutionary War is a separate article. I find it hard to imagine that our audience of reviewers would be able to agree on the name for the era that encompasses the war; it has been difficult enough to agree on the name of the war itself. One of the problems I see in the organization of articles and subarticles in Wikipedia is that there are a number of people who are unwilling to see their key ideas relegated to a subarticle, so the main articles keep growing, even when topics have been reorganized. An interesting data point, however: I recently had some free time to browse through the Encyclopedia Britannica in printed form and note that they cover the entire American Civil War era in a single large article. (They also have a series of smaller articles in what they call their "micropedia" volumes that include some important biographies and a few of the large battles in more detail, although considerably less detailed than we have here.) Hal Jespersen 18:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many the article is unmanageably long, though I'm not an advocate of the suggested breakdown. I'm not at all satisfied with the current construction, but am too much of a freshman to consider making serious changes.

I would also suggest Hal has identified two of the "nuggets" in the situation:

  • differentiating between the era of conflict (forshadowing, causes, action, reaction, aftermath, consequences, legacy) and the war itself (very roughly the 1458 days between Fort Sumter and Appomatox); this issue has itself been made the subject of an article (naming of the war).
  • personal rancor of those who for whatever reason hold strong viewpoints and who can make article management more difficult; ACW is one subject which evokes a personal and visceral reaction even among those who wouldn't otherwise involve themselves in the discussion

I don't see this problem going away anytime soon. IMHO, the sooner any strategy is designed and adopted, the sooner the strategy can be modified and optimized. BusterD 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate bibliography-historiography article

Yes I think there should be a separate article on the historiography and bibliography of the war. That would mean a "reference" section of maybe 20 titles will remain in the main article, to get people started. 55 years ago the Randall-Donald textbook had an 85 page annotated bibliography, and the literature has more than doubled since then. Rjensen 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delaware seceding

The text stated that Delaware never considered secession, but this is incorrect; see 1861 and here. I have fixed the text. Deville 23:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Confederate Insurgency

I suggest rewording this in line with the Iraqi Civil War by deeming it an Insurgency. For as you see the Confederate Insurgents declared war on the Union.

King Legit

we have a whole article on naming the CW that explores such questions. Rjensen 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

pl:Kampania na Missisipi

'Campaign on Missisipi' is a Polish Wikipedia Feature Article. Strangly, it is not linked to en version and I cannot find anything that would look similar. Any suggestions? Lead of the Polish article translates at: Campaign on Missisip - series of battles over control of the Missisipi river valley during the American Civil War in North America, from February 1862 to July 1863.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Although I can't read it, from the various images and links, it looks pretty decent. What sort of suggestions are you soliciting? That someone translate it? It is somwhat similar to the first half of Western Theater of the American Civil War, although that article is more army-oriented. Hal Jespersen 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I meant suggestions whether there is an existign article on en on the same subject that is not connect to pl via interwiki, and if not, whether anybody can create a stub at least (I could help with some translations). It's kind of strange for pl wiki to have a FA on American history, and for en wiki not to have even a stub on the subject.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Union States

Hello all,

I was reading the article on American Civil War and I have a serious probelm with the section on Union states. Once Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee secede they were not technically part of the Union. Not until Congress re-admitted them back into the Union. It is true that Abraham Lincoln and others refused to recognize the secession of the the South. Yet, the fact remains that the South seceded.

Additionally, the Union army only controlled portions of Louisiana at the end of the war. The Red River Campaign was a disaster for the Unoin army. Therefore, part of the state of Louisiana was still in Confederate control.

I therefore purpose that the line "The Union counted Virginia as well, and added Nevada and West Virginia. It added Tennessee, Louisiana and other rebel states as soon as they were reconquered." be removed from the article.--Christian_Historybuff aka Steve

the status of the reconquered areas was hotly debated and became one of the major issues of Reconstruction. However, they WERE reconquered; they became part of the Union again as soon as that happened, so the article is quite correct. (It does not say what legal status they had -- but they were treated as part of Union, as shown for example by Emanc. Proc.) Rjensen 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand yuor anser, Rjensen. However, I still object to Louisiana being include because only the area around the Mississippi River was under Union control by the end of the war.--Christian_Historybuff aka Steve
I think over 80% of the Louisiana population was under Union control there-- The people lived along the Mississippi river in those days; the Red River area was lightly populated. Certainly most Confederates at the time thought Lousiana was "lost". Rjensen 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Failure to Compromise" section

This is sort of a question here ... not an argument OK? I seem to recall hearing about a compromise that was proposed at one point that the South didn't accept. Sombody proposed that slavery would be allowed in all territories south of the missouri/arkansas border except california and forbidden north of there forever. Or something close to that. somebody named "Kellog" or however you spell that breakfast cereal company. --Nerd42 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

there were a lot of compromises proposed but none that had approval of both north and south. By December 1860 the possibility of any successful compromise was near zero. Rjensen 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
this section kind of seems to indicate that there weren't any - wouldn't saying that neither side accepted them because they weren't gentlemen enough be kinda POV? --Nerd42 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point! I tried to fix it. Rjensen 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Result of the war

In the infobox, the "Result" section used to say "...Southern states reannexed..." But this has been changed to "reconstructed". I think it should be changed back to "reannexed" (or something similar), since "reconstruction" is a nebulous term, and didn't really occur (if at all) until some time after the war. While the southern states were unquestionable "reannexed" at the end of the war. Also, reconstruction may not be a term familiar to many non-Americans, or non-historians, and it may seem confusing. Everybody knows what "annexed" means.--JW1805 (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening section was recently changed to include "...The Union led by President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant won a decisive victory,..." with the italics added. I don't think this clause should be included. If we mention Lincoln, we would have to mention Davis. And Grant in no way "led the Union". He did "lead the US Army" only near the end of the war. There were many other Union generals who contributed to the victory. No point in singling him out here, I don't think. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening works. "Reconstruction" was the term used then (starting in 1861) and now by all historians and textbooks and reference books. See the article Reconstruction. Reannexation did not happen and the term was never used. As for Grant he was commander in chief of all US forces in 1864-65 and is unanimously given credit with Lincoln. Davis gets mentioned but later of course. To say he helped the Union to victory would be too sarcastic, I think. Rjensen 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
When dealing with military history we give the commanding general the credit for winning the war. Americans at the time and ever since have given Grant the credit, as well they should. Who else but Grant should get credit? Sherman? Thomas? McClellen? People expect the opening to be a capsule summary and not mentioning any soldier would seem very odd. So why does one editor keep eliminating Grant? He needs to explain this strange choice. Rjensen 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is enormously long. A page summary should be concise and contain NO unnecessary detail. Mentioning these two individuals is totally beside the subject of the American Civil War; they were major figures, but not essential to a page summary. The article has mountains of (poorly organized) detail and plenty of kudos for generals and presidents. BusterD 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enouigh: I will trim elsewhere to make room for this important fact. Rjensen 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point, I think. Length is one factor. Significance is another. There's no compelling need to mention these two individuals out of the millions involved. The lengthy three paragraph introduction to the World War II doesn't mention Adolf Hitler. The two paragraph introduction to WWI doesn't mention any individual. Gulf war intro doesn't mention Saddam. Current conflict intro doesn't mention current president or Saddam. My point is that an article introduction need not mention names of the victors in a conflict. It's not encyclopedian, and it borders on cheerleading. I'll not switch it back because you're so attached to it, but it doesn't belong. Oh by the way, no state was ever "reconstructed." The constitutional term is readmitted. BusterD 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you brought up length. Significance is another: Lincoln and Grant had charge of the war, made the plans and won it. Those are the facts that people need to know. If someone spends 60 seconds on the article we want them to know about Lincoln and Grant. Rjensen 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I never knew Lincoln and Grant "had charge of the war." I'm sure that would have come as a surprise to both Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Grant. As previously pointed out, Grant only had multi-theater control in the last 11 months of the war. That Lincoln "had charge" is debatable. In fact, the winning plan was determined by outgoing Army commander Winfield Scott (Anaconda Plan). Lincoln adopted it and adapted as necessary. Grant was the plan's most effective executor, but the plan was Scott's. Whether Lincoln and Grant "won" anything, that sounds like hyperbole to me. And damned disrespectful to all those others who died in the war (including relatives of mine). No, go ahead and cheerlead for individuals whose honor doesn't need your help, but if the first three paragraphs of the WWII article don't warrant a mention of Hitler, then Lincoln and Grant only belong in the introduction of this article as a vanity. BusterD 02:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC) LLBusterD seems to have very strong person POV. That does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rjensen 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we have 1 for inclusion, and 3 against, so I went ahead and removed the Grant reference again. Rjense, unless you can get somebody else to agree with you, we should leave it out. It just isn't necessary. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BusterD does have a strong point of view about adhering to wikipedia standards and generally letting the community solve these issues. I'm a bit annoyed (and also enlightened) you feel you must get your way on this petty, petty matter. If the defense of your position is that BusterD does feel strongly, I must concede. If your objection to my point of view is that you must have your own way, that's a very different matter. IMHO, this page is on the verge of becoming one user's vanity project (look at the recent talk above), and THAT has no place in an encyclopedia. BusterD 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with the Origins of the War coming before the Division of the Country?

I mean, the origins of war ends up with secession, so the sections dovetail nicely.

The first section needs adapting, and secession would need help. I encourge those who want to see what it looks like to see my version reverted (as vandalism) by rjensen. I think the version I created is more readable, and is certainly not vandalism.

Perhaps my change was hasty, but look at it and tell me what we have now is better. BusterD 03:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Origins section is now entirely about historiography and should stay that way--that is it gives a succinct summary of the multiple positions that exist on the causes. There is a long separate article on Causes that should be used instead of this one. Rjensen
I agree, the Origins section should go before the Division of the country section. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What should be on this page? What would a featured article look like?

Many have mentioned a willingness to see some significant changes on this essential English-language page. This should be a page that other language wikipedias use as reference. It should reflect the community of wikischolars assembled, and I see a bunch of folks out there.

Rjensen correctly notes that this article needs to be broken down into separate articles, and suggests one possible method of breakdown. I'd like to look at this from a slightly different vantage: Once separate articles are written, imagine what's left on this page to form a core around which those subjects can be linked.

That being said, I'm going to offer my opinions. What follows are merely my suggestions. I relish discussion on this page on this subject.

IMHO, I think we should have a first-rate graphic next to the contents, pushing the warbox further down. I believe that the introductory statement might be made even longer, perhaps three or four paragraphs which contain links to a number of top-quality peripheral articles as described above.

Next, Rjensen is also correct about the historiography not belonging at the beginning of the article. Something does belong there, and what's there now does serve, but isn't optimal. This section belongs after the narrative summary, or in another article, IMHO.

Division of the country is so rough, but is essential to this article. IMHO, the entire Union might be described, followed by how each state (or group of states) secceeded. The narrative summary is clearly essential, and isn't terrible as is. It should be much tighter (about 1/2 as long). More graphics here, especially a few easy maps.

Analysis of why the north won is mere punditry, and few of us are truly qualifed to to draw those conclusions. Lately it has become a bulletin board for northern partisans. Not essential. Move to new article or delete.

Battle table? Better at the Battles article. Fold in Major Land Battles and Naval Actions with narrative history. Not necessary. Just my opinion. Civil War Leaders and soldiers deserves its own article. Question of Slavery should be covered in Causes, and integrated into the narrative.

Foreign Diplomacy deserves its own article, but needs to be tightened and illustrated in this article, it's essential. Aftermath is crucial, needs tightening and illustration.

Historiography that's currently serving as "Multiple explanations" should go after the aftermath, and needs a better title.

References are a big problem with this article. Half the last two hundred or so lines of this page are just not necessary. Only references necessary for creating the article are required. A separate article on bibliography and/or historiography might serve. Non-essential ending links might be shuttled over to a links article (I don't like it either, but we need to agree to some cutoff point).

Anybody else have an opinion on this important (and too long neglected) subject? BusterD 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_4&oldid=40521580"