This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This the second archive of the American Civil War page, and contains posts from 18 October 2005 until 4 June 2006.
Please do not make changes to this page.
I think it would be beneficial if we mentioned the Wide Awakes and their contribution to the Southern Fear of Lincoln/Republicans abolishing slavery. There is already a nice page written up on it, it would only take a small blurb and would illustrate the growing tensions between the North and South on the topic of slavery.
--Grimlockbash
-- 69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)== 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) no one is really wide awake were all tired
love u people wat u doin who u chattin wit i talking to pete yo bye see yall later-- 69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Map of the division of the states during the Civil War. Dark blue represents Union states; light blue represents Union states that permitted slavery; red represents Confederate states; Unshaded represents areas that had not yet become states."
That map is a map of the modern USA with states colored in. Someone please fix this. Ken Arromdee 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ken, I created a replacement for this map a year ago, but it unfortunately keeps getting reverted without discussion. I will change it again. However, I would like whoever who disagrees with me to please discuss their reasons and let people decide what to keep. No one likes revert wars. So lets end it. -- Ampersand 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
PS
My arguments against the previous map are as follows: 1) borders are inaccurate. 2) color scheme is inappropriate, the standard is grey for the confederacy. don't drag politics into this. 3) my map uses a politically neutral color arrangement and outlines borders of US territories at the time.
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)
Was the turning point Gettysburg, Antietam or what? Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 the whole population (everyone, civilians and soldiers) of the Union and the Confederacy should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.19.75 ( talk • contribs) 06:34, December 10, 2005.
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)
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)
Let me see, how about:
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)
I would not object to the following scenario:
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)
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)
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."
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)
Can somebody name the last man killed in the war? (Include it?) Trekphiler 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The last battle was in Texas, and that's all I know about it.-- Dark Fennec 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There are at least 5 articles here, and they will eventually have to be split. This is such a huge topic!
Rjensen 11:17, 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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
'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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the worthy discussion. After a bunch of sideways reading on wikipedia, I have another idea: I notice many important topic articles are grouped into series, some more successfully than others. I propose we create comprehensive list of articles on this talk page or another temporary page, then group them. We might use an article box (like at World War II) or a series box (like at Rome). I'm way open to suggestions. IMHO, the important thing is we integrate existing work into a coherent framework, then create a demi-moderated structure on this ACW page that makes it difficult to turn into hash again. I believe we have a small intrepid interested group. Let's go quietly after the star. Set a deadline of, what, June? BusterD 12:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody added a long section of the Air War (balloons) -- with far more attention than is given signals, railroads, artillery, cavalry or infantry combined. Any objections to spinning it off to new article? Rjensen 07:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Good move. The article inserted was actually quite good (I didn't see any obvious errors) but it needed to be wiki'd thoroughly. I could see that being a separate article. BusterD 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I created this, based on the World War II template. What do you think? (In case you're wondering how I selected the entries, they were based entirely on my memory. They are obviously changeable.) Hal Jespersen 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice start, but the density of the box makes me think this is going to be MUCH longer. I like it though, and am pleasantly surprised to see many of the things I described already taking place. Thanks Hal! BusterD 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The article had two parallel sections on Origins, or historiography. I merged them together. Rjensen 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Does this even belong in the article?
-- JimWae 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nearly every time the word abolitionist appears, it is deprecated. Here are quotes from the article
This is typical of articles on this topic on wikipedia -- JimWae 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
From 1770s a debate took place between gradualist and immediatist anti-slavery reformers. Gradualists said the transition from slavery to freedom should be characterized by a series of intermediary steps (apprenticeship, colonization, etc.). Gradualists dominated the early antislavery thinking. However, during the 1830s, the idea of immediate emancipation superseded gradualism. Immediatists all advocated total, unconditional, and uncompensated emancipation. Some immediatists were cautious saying the commitment to emancipation had to be made right now but the implementation might take years. ("immediate emancipation gradually achieved.") They all agreed sinful slave owners had to immediately repent. See David Brion Davis, "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," MVHR 49:209-30 (September 1962). Rjensen 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a recent (very minor) change to this article, which was promptly changed back. Perhaps I should have explained why I made the change.
I changed the first sentence, which read "The American Civil War was a civil war between..."; modifying it to read "The American Civil War was a war between..." I made this change, because I saw the sentence as factually inaccurate. The American Civil War was NOT a true civil war.
Wikipedia's article on civil war defines the term in the first sentence: "A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power." This definition does not fit the American Civil War for two reasons:
I don't see anything wrong with this definition. "Civil War" is a misnomer in this case. Unless we are using a broader definition than this, the sentence should be changed. I'll change it later if there's no objection. TheButterfly 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I also kinda object. I reverted your change myself; I must admit I thought the change was vandalism of a subtle kind, especially because the change wasn't signed by a user. If a user (even a very new account) had made the identical change, I would have respected the boldness, and held fire, awaiting this very discussion. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia! BusterD 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I also find it appropriate to object. I understand your points. However, in retrospect, perhaps largely due to the outcome, the North's position prevailed, and the legal premise upon which it was all largely settled, was that the Union was intact. There is room to present the South's perspective during the conflict, but I feel the term civil war is appropriate in the whole. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we should also remember that the creation of the Union did not provide an exit strategy option. Regarding misspelling, I have found the freeware ieSpell program to be easy and really helpful in reviewing my edits, and I recommend it. Vaoverland 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming around to the view that northern people of the time felt the conflict as rebellion, and contemporary southerners felt the conflict was a war of independence. It would not be inaccurate to describe the event as an "unsuccessful rebellion." Popular usage of the term civil war arose several years after the conflict, though Abraham Lincoln himself used the term in his Gettysburg Address. As the introduction gets lengthened, I could see some of this mentioned, although this more properly belongs in the naming article. BusterD 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way as The Butterfly does. I totally disagree with the term American Civil War and believe that "The War between the States", "The War for Southern Independance", or "The War of Northern Agression" are much more accurate names.
Bacongirl
16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
]] where this sort of question should be discussed. This is about the war itself, not the name. Rjensen 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the above paragraph is ambiguous. Does it mean that Northen politicians reversed both positions, claiming that the federal government could prevent slave ownership in the territories but did not need to return run away slaves? or does it mean that they reversed only the first position regarding the territories? It is my understanding that Lincoln's position was that the federal government could prohibit slavery in the territories, but was still bound by the fugative slave clause of the constitution. Thus, this is a request both for a fact check and for a clarification of the existing wording. -- 24.30.122.32 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A civil war is defined as two groups within a society fighting for control of the government. That did not happen between 1861-65. The desire was for the South to create its own nation. Before somebody jumps, I am not a neo-Confederate, but details do matter. —This unsigned comment was added by 66.156.25.14 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, April 3, 2006 .
What I want to know is, how did the name "civil war" get tagged onto this war? Bacongirl 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added a much longer introduction. I spent some time on this. I feel the statements made are non-controversial, but are strong summaries of events described. I'd be glad to answer any objections, comments critiques here. I have said on this page that I'd be making a few changes in the intro, this is my first try. BusterD 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So you replaced it with something far inferior with no links, no info, and no consensus. This is WIKIPEDIA. WIKI links are good things here! You agree you like the new introduction, then you remove it? I don't understand your compliment, if you're just going ignore the request to hold fire. BusterD 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
While many on both sides believed the war would be resolved quickly by aggressive tactical military action, the unforseen rapid evolution of military science and the conflict's immense social, economic and human costs soon dashed the public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare. This does not summarize any part of the article. It cannot stay
The North's victory was eventually achieved by leveraging advantages in population, manufacturing and logistics and through strategic naval blockade preventing the Confederacy from access to the world's markets This is inadequate—no mention of leadership for example, or battles; exaggerates role of blockade. Has to be expanded
The following is not a summary of the article at all—in fact it’s about Reconstruction, which has its own long article. In many ways the conflict's central issues (the role of federal government under the constitution, states' rights, treatment of African men and women) are not completely resolved; the Confederate Army's April 9, 1865 surrender at Appomattox did little to change many Americans' attitudes about threats posed by a powerful central government, the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments in the years immediately after the war had little power to change attitudes of racial prejudice prevalent among Americans of the day, and the process of Reconstruction could not heal the deeply personal wounds inflicted by four brutal years of war and more than 970,000 casualties including approximately 620,000 soldiers who died (one third in combat, two-thirds by disease). As a result, controversies affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought. The causes of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today. Rjensen 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing your critique here. This is precisely why I asked folks to hold fire and allow me to defend my effort BEFORE we started this mass deletion thing.
Points raised:
BusterD 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'ver seen this sentenced dumped into a few articles
It seems POV to say the CRM had neoabolitionist roots - ambiguously suggesting there were no other roots. It also has little or no relationship to the rest of the article or at least would require unpacking to include it -- JimWae 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- it is a questionable, totally unnecessary, POV linkage whose meaning is not even clear -- JimWae 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean, there are two bold faced ACW's for heck's sake. So a well-considered intro is bad, but a written on the fly and not even proofread is superior? Am I all by myself here? Or are we back to "Rjensen's way or the highway"... BusterD 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to be civil, and add well-considered content (for which I'd invited a few users to critique before I posted). I invite you to read my corrected intro, and help me make that writing better, if you think it better than what we've seen. I'm getting weary of needing rjensen's approval for every American History change I make. If this were a schoolyard, I would consider one user a schoolyard bully. BusterD 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good. Aleph2.0 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual end of slavery was with ratification of the 13th amendment, not with the end of the Civil War. 69.118.97.26 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the picture of the sunken road in front of Marye's heights is likely from the Battle of Fredericksburg (December 1862) NOT the battle of Chancellorsville. Chancellorsville is approximately 15 miles west of Fredericksburg. While there were some minor skirmishes in the town of Fredericksburg associated with the battle of Chancellorsville, I believe none of them took place at the sunken road, whereas the sunken road was the nexus of the battle of Fredericksburg. Also, note that the deciduous trees have no leaves in the picture. It was taken in the winter (December), not in June, when Chancellorsville was fought. If anyone else can confirm, the caption should be updated.
I sort of think the "Foreign diplomacy" section is unnecessary for this article, and more properly belongs in the Confederate States of America article. It isn't really about the war. -- JW1805 (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up some spam in the into. Apperently, some one was bored and hates Wikipedia. Keep the wiki projects strong! ( 204.110.45.191 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC))
Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.-- Ryz05 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't see why a picture of a whipped slave should go on this page. I understand it, but isn't it just a little too in-depth?
The Ronin 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I thought that was a little much. Graphic, you know? -- Dark Fennec 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph is abstrucious. What a sodding mess.
Flame viper 12 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote; I think this version the best:
Here's a version for your consideration:
The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a bitter war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, comprising states that tried to secede from the Union in 1860-61. The causes of the war involved the morality of slavery, the threat posed by the Slave Power, and the rights of the states to establish slavery. At a deeper level North and South had grown apart on many issues, as the North modernized and built an economy around free labor and the South was built around large slave plantations growing cotton, tobacco and sugar. The federal government refused to recognize any right of secession and tried to hold the two forts in the Confederacy it still controlled, when Confederates fired on and captured Ft Sumter. Both sides mobilized in what became a total war for the South, and almost one for the North. The Confederacy’s sole goal was to secure independence. It hoped the loss of cotton would bring Britain into the war, but that did not happen. while imposing a blockade that shut down all commercial shipping in the South. Lincoln’s strategy was to blockade the South (done in 1861), seize the border states (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, done in 1861, seize New Orleans (1862), the Tennessee and Cuimberland Rivers (1862), and the Mississippi (1863) and capture the Confederate capital of Richmond. The last goal was blocked by the brilliant maneuvers of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who filed a whole series of Union commanders in the East. In 1862 Lincoln expanded the war goals by announcing the goal of freeing all the Confederate-owned slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation . Although Lee won famous victories at Fredericksburg, (1862) and Chancellorsville, (1863) his invasion of the north was decisively defeated at Gettysburg. (1863). [to be continued]
Without getting into all of the political and social issues, here is my take on a military description of the war for the introductory section. It is a little long, but we know from previous review comments regarding featured article status that a major article of this length should have an introduction of at least four paragraphs. Perhaps this text can be integrated into a more complete introduction that includes the other issues.
Hal Jespersen 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if one overlooks the sloppy punctuation and bloopers like "Lee was almost captured at Gettysburg", it is not terribly different, with a significant exception—I included more Western details and names of generals there, whereas you focused more on Grant and Lee. (I admit I deliberately omitted Franklin-Nashville, which is an interesting campaign, but sort of a sideshow at that point in the war.) So that is a general discussion topic: should the Western Theater have equal footing with the Eastern in the intro? If we decided to go with your version, I would have to do a lot of editing to correct things, so I'd prefer to hear comments from others first. Hal Jespersen 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor complaint about the Peace Monument picture at the end. It's at Chickamauga Battlefield. Lookout Mountain Battlefield has a couple of cannons, but no statues. 146.7.214.100 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)M. Howell
For the External Links section, it might be useful to add links to the two manuals of military surgery (1861 and 1863) recently made available online at 1861 S.D. Gross version used by the Union Army and 1863 version used by the Confederate States Army A Koopman 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)A Koopman
This comment was originally posted to the main article page: Please. Will someone include Civil War "ideas"? That would be helpful! I am sorry that I had to edit the article to put this in; I just can't really do it any other way. Please feel free to delete my comment.
Like battles of other wars all the battles that took place during this war should have the flag of the country next to the name. see battle of gettysburg( Griffjam 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
I suggest talk has gotten long, and there's a clear break of discussion above 6 June. Archive might end at this point, keeping the fresh discussion for the new talk. BusterD 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This the second archive of the American Civil War page, and contains posts from 18 October 2005 until 4 June 2006.
Please do not make changes to this page.
I think it would be beneficial if we mentioned the Wide Awakes and their contribution to the Southern Fear of Lincoln/Republicans abolishing slavery. There is already a nice page written up on it, it would only take a small blurb and would illustrate the growing tensions between the North and South on the topic of slavery.
--Grimlockbash
-- 69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)== 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) no one is really wide awake were all tired
love u people wat u doin who u chattin wit i talking to pete yo bye see yall later-- 69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Map of the division of the states during the Civil War. Dark blue represents Union states; light blue represents Union states that permitted slavery; red represents Confederate states; Unshaded represents areas that had not yet become states."
That map is a map of the modern USA with states colored in. Someone please fix this. Ken Arromdee 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ken, I created a replacement for this map a year ago, but it unfortunately keeps getting reverted without discussion. I will change it again. However, I would like whoever who disagrees with me to please discuss their reasons and let people decide what to keep. No one likes revert wars. So lets end it. -- Ampersand 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
PS
My arguments against the previous map are as follows: 1) borders are inaccurate. 2) color scheme is inappropriate, the standard is grey for the confederacy. don't drag politics into this. 3) my map uses a politically neutral color arrangement and outlines borders of US territories at the time.
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)
Was the turning point Gettysburg, Antietam or what? Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 the whole population (everyone, civilians and soldiers) of the Union and the Confederacy should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.19.75 ( talk • contribs) 06:34, December 10, 2005.
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)
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)
Let me see, how about:
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)
I would not object to the following scenario:
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)
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)
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."
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)
Can somebody name the last man killed in the war? (Include it?) Trekphiler 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The last battle was in Texas, and that's all I know about it.-- Dark Fennec 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There are at least 5 articles here, and they will eventually have to be split. This is such a huge topic!
Rjensen 11:17, 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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
'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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the worthy discussion. After a bunch of sideways reading on wikipedia, I have another idea: I notice many important topic articles are grouped into series, some more successfully than others. I propose we create comprehensive list of articles on this talk page or another temporary page, then group them. We might use an article box (like at World War II) or a series box (like at Rome). I'm way open to suggestions. IMHO, the important thing is we integrate existing work into a coherent framework, then create a demi-moderated structure on this ACW page that makes it difficult to turn into hash again. I believe we have a small intrepid interested group. Let's go quietly after the star. Set a deadline of, what, June? BusterD 12:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody added a long section of the Air War (balloons) -- with far more attention than is given signals, railroads, artillery, cavalry or infantry combined. Any objections to spinning it off to new article? Rjensen 07:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Good move. The article inserted was actually quite good (I didn't see any obvious errors) but it needed to be wiki'd thoroughly. I could see that being a separate article. BusterD 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I created this, based on the World War II template. What do you think? (In case you're wondering how I selected the entries, they were based entirely on my memory. They are obviously changeable.) Hal Jespersen 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice start, but the density of the box makes me think this is going to be MUCH longer. I like it though, and am pleasantly surprised to see many of the things I described already taking place. Thanks Hal! BusterD 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The article had two parallel sections on Origins, or historiography. I merged them together. Rjensen 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Does this even belong in the article?
-- JimWae 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nearly every time the word abolitionist appears, it is deprecated. Here are quotes from the article
This is typical of articles on this topic on wikipedia -- JimWae 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
From 1770s a debate took place between gradualist and immediatist anti-slavery reformers. Gradualists said the transition from slavery to freedom should be characterized by a series of intermediary steps (apprenticeship, colonization, etc.). Gradualists dominated the early antislavery thinking. However, during the 1830s, the idea of immediate emancipation superseded gradualism. Immediatists all advocated total, unconditional, and uncompensated emancipation. Some immediatists were cautious saying the commitment to emancipation had to be made right now but the implementation might take years. ("immediate emancipation gradually achieved.") They all agreed sinful slave owners had to immediately repent. See David Brion Davis, "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," MVHR 49:209-30 (September 1962). Rjensen 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a recent (very minor) change to this article, which was promptly changed back. Perhaps I should have explained why I made the change.
I changed the first sentence, which read "The American Civil War was a civil war between..."; modifying it to read "The American Civil War was a war between..." I made this change, because I saw the sentence as factually inaccurate. The American Civil War was NOT a true civil war.
Wikipedia's article on civil war defines the term in the first sentence: "A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power." This definition does not fit the American Civil War for two reasons:
I don't see anything wrong with this definition. "Civil War" is a misnomer in this case. Unless we are using a broader definition than this, the sentence should be changed. I'll change it later if there's no objection. TheButterfly 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I also kinda object. I reverted your change myself; I must admit I thought the change was vandalism of a subtle kind, especially because the change wasn't signed by a user. If a user (even a very new account) had made the identical change, I would have respected the boldness, and held fire, awaiting this very discussion. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia! BusterD 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I also find it appropriate to object. I understand your points. However, in retrospect, perhaps largely due to the outcome, the North's position prevailed, and the legal premise upon which it was all largely settled, was that the Union was intact. There is room to present the South's perspective during the conflict, but I feel the term civil war is appropriate in the whole. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we should also remember that the creation of the Union did not provide an exit strategy option. Regarding misspelling, I have found the freeware ieSpell program to be easy and really helpful in reviewing my edits, and I recommend it. Vaoverland 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming around to the view that northern people of the time felt the conflict as rebellion, and contemporary southerners felt the conflict was a war of independence. It would not be inaccurate to describe the event as an "unsuccessful rebellion." Popular usage of the term civil war arose several years after the conflict, though Abraham Lincoln himself used the term in his Gettysburg Address. As the introduction gets lengthened, I could see some of this mentioned, although this more properly belongs in the naming article. BusterD 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way as The Butterfly does. I totally disagree with the term American Civil War and believe that "The War between the States", "The War for Southern Independance", or "The War of Northern Agression" are much more accurate names.
Bacongirl
16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
]] where this sort of question should be discussed. This is about the war itself, not the name. Rjensen 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the above paragraph is ambiguous. Does it mean that Northen politicians reversed both positions, claiming that the federal government could prevent slave ownership in the territories but did not need to return run away slaves? or does it mean that they reversed only the first position regarding the territories? It is my understanding that Lincoln's position was that the federal government could prohibit slavery in the territories, but was still bound by the fugative slave clause of the constitution. Thus, this is a request both for a fact check and for a clarification of the existing wording. -- 24.30.122.32 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A civil war is defined as two groups within a society fighting for control of the government. That did not happen between 1861-65. The desire was for the South to create its own nation. Before somebody jumps, I am not a neo-Confederate, but details do matter. —This unsigned comment was added by 66.156.25.14 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, April 3, 2006 .
What I want to know is, how did the name "civil war" get tagged onto this war? Bacongirl 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added a much longer introduction. I spent some time on this. I feel the statements made are non-controversial, but are strong summaries of events described. I'd be glad to answer any objections, comments critiques here. I have said on this page that I'd be making a few changes in the intro, this is my first try. BusterD 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So you replaced it with something far inferior with no links, no info, and no consensus. This is WIKIPEDIA. WIKI links are good things here! You agree you like the new introduction, then you remove it? I don't understand your compliment, if you're just going ignore the request to hold fire. BusterD 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
While many on both sides believed the war would be resolved quickly by aggressive tactical military action, the unforseen rapid evolution of military science and the conflict's immense social, economic and human costs soon dashed the public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare. This does not summarize any part of the article. It cannot stay
The North's victory was eventually achieved by leveraging advantages in population, manufacturing and logistics and through strategic naval blockade preventing the Confederacy from access to the world's markets This is inadequate—no mention of leadership for example, or battles; exaggerates role of blockade. Has to be expanded
The following is not a summary of the article at all—in fact it’s about Reconstruction, which has its own long article. In many ways the conflict's central issues (the role of federal government under the constitution, states' rights, treatment of African men and women) are not completely resolved; the Confederate Army's April 9, 1865 surrender at Appomattox did little to change many Americans' attitudes about threats posed by a powerful central government, the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments in the years immediately after the war had little power to change attitudes of racial prejudice prevalent among Americans of the day, and the process of Reconstruction could not heal the deeply personal wounds inflicted by four brutal years of war and more than 970,000 casualties including approximately 620,000 soldiers who died (one third in combat, two-thirds by disease). As a result, controversies affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought. The causes of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today. Rjensen 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing your critique here. This is precisely why I asked folks to hold fire and allow me to defend my effort BEFORE we started this mass deletion thing.
Points raised:
BusterD 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'ver seen this sentenced dumped into a few articles
It seems POV to say the CRM had neoabolitionist roots - ambiguously suggesting there were no other roots. It also has little or no relationship to the rest of the article or at least would require unpacking to include it -- JimWae 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- it is a questionable, totally unnecessary, POV linkage whose meaning is not even clear -- JimWae 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean, there are two bold faced ACW's for heck's sake. So a well-considered intro is bad, but a written on the fly and not even proofread is superior? Am I all by myself here? Or are we back to "Rjensen's way or the highway"... BusterD 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to be civil, and add well-considered content (for which I'd invited a few users to critique before I posted). I invite you to read my corrected intro, and help me make that writing better, if you think it better than what we've seen. I'm getting weary of needing rjensen's approval for every American History change I make. If this were a schoolyard, I would consider one user a schoolyard bully. BusterD 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good. Aleph2.0 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual end of slavery was with ratification of the 13th amendment, not with the end of the Civil War. 69.118.97.26 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the picture of the sunken road in front of Marye's heights is likely from the Battle of Fredericksburg (December 1862) NOT the battle of Chancellorsville. Chancellorsville is approximately 15 miles west of Fredericksburg. While there were some minor skirmishes in the town of Fredericksburg associated with the battle of Chancellorsville, I believe none of them took place at the sunken road, whereas the sunken road was the nexus of the battle of Fredericksburg. Also, note that the deciduous trees have no leaves in the picture. It was taken in the winter (December), not in June, when Chancellorsville was fought. If anyone else can confirm, the caption should be updated.
I sort of think the "Foreign diplomacy" section is unnecessary for this article, and more properly belongs in the Confederate States of America article. It isn't really about the war. -- JW1805 (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up some spam in the into. Apperently, some one was bored and hates Wikipedia. Keep the wiki projects strong! ( 204.110.45.191 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC))
Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.-- Ryz05 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't see why a picture of a whipped slave should go on this page. I understand it, but isn't it just a little too in-depth?
The Ronin 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I thought that was a little much. Graphic, you know? -- Dark Fennec 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph is abstrucious. What a sodding mess.
Flame viper 12 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote; I think this version the best:
Here's a version for your consideration:
The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a bitter war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, comprising states that tried to secede from the Union in 1860-61. The causes of the war involved the morality of slavery, the threat posed by the Slave Power, and the rights of the states to establish slavery. At a deeper level North and South had grown apart on many issues, as the North modernized and built an economy around free labor and the South was built around large slave plantations growing cotton, tobacco and sugar. The federal government refused to recognize any right of secession and tried to hold the two forts in the Confederacy it still controlled, when Confederates fired on and captured Ft Sumter. Both sides mobilized in what became a total war for the South, and almost one for the North. The Confederacy’s sole goal was to secure independence. It hoped the loss of cotton would bring Britain into the war, but that did not happen. while imposing a blockade that shut down all commercial shipping in the South. Lincoln’s strategy was to blockade the South (done in 1861), seize the border states (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, done in 1861, seize New Orleans (1862), the Tennessee and Cuimberland Rivers (1862), and the Mississippi (1863) and capture the Confederate capital of Richmond. The last goal was blocked by the brilliant maneuvers of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who filed a whole series of Union commanders in the East. In 1862 Lincoln expanded the war goals by announcing the goal of freeing all the Confederate-owned slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation . Although Lee won famous victories at Fredericksburg, (1862) and Chancellorsville, (1863) his invasion of the north was decisively defeated at Gettysburg. (1863). [to be continued]
Without getting into all of the political and social issues, here is my take on a military description of the war for the introductory section. It is a little long, but we know from previous review comments regarding featured article status that a major article of this length should have an introduction of at least four paragraphs. Perhaps this text can be integrated into a more complete introduction that includes the other issues.
Hal Jespersen 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if one overlooks the sloppy punctuation and bloopers like "Lee was almost captured at Gettysburg", it is not terribly different, with a significant exception—I included more Western details and names of generals there, whereas you focused more on Grant and Lee. (I admit I deliberately omitted Franklin-Nashville, which is an interesting campaign, but sort of a sideshow at that point in the war.) So that is a general discussion topic: should the Western Theater have equal footing with the Eastern in the intro? If we decided to go with your version, I would have to do a lot of editing to correct things, so I'd prefer to hear comments from others first. Hal Jespersen 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor complaint about the Peace Monument picture at the end. It's at Chickamauga Battlefield. Lookout Mountain Battlefield has a couple of cannons, but no statues. 146.7.214.100 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)M. Howell
For the External Links section, it might be useful to add links to the two manuals of military surgery (1861 and 1863) recently made available online at 1861 S.D. Gross version used by the Union Army and 1863 version used by the Confederate States Army A Koopman 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)A Koopman
This comment was originally posted to the main article page: Please. Will someone include Civil War "ideas"? That would be helpful! I am sorry that I had to edit the article to put this in; I just can't really do it any other way. Please feel free to delete my comment.
Like battles of other wars all the battles that took place during this war should have the flag of the country next to the name. see battle of gettysburg( Griffjam 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
I suggest talk has gotten long, and there's a clear break of discussion above 6 June. Archive might end at this point, keeping the fresh discussion for the new talk. BusterD 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)