Jump to content

Talk:American Civil War/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Introduction “fought over secession”

- Mike18xx asserts without discussion here to alter the consensus on several counts. He propose that the American Civil War does not contest (a) for union on one side and (b) secession on the other, since the secession was already two months peacefully in-the-bag prior to Sumter; and the article states Lincoln had no intention to invade Southern states.
- a) The statement assumes the start as the Montgomery Convention, but that is the start of the Confederate States of America. The introduction to the American Civil War must be descriptive of the American Civil War. Editor consensus: The beginning of the American Civil War was the Confederate bombardment of Fort SUMTER.
- b) Lincoln (US) stated intention to restore the union by U.S. elections without a fight in the southern states, and Davis (CS) stated intention to remove territory and population from a sovereign nation to create a separate and equal sovereign nation without a fight. But neither assertion can be taken historiographically to mean that there was no fight on EITHER the part of Lincoln OR the part of Davis, 1861-1865. Editor consensus: There was a contest of arms on the part of BOTH sides to make a civil war.
- c) The issue of war was first and primarily over whether there might be de facto secession of states and population from the U.S. carried out on the North American continent. The reason for the war was explained on both sides as a difference over slavery, its practice, its extension and its future. Editor consensus: The ACW was caused by a confluence of factors related to different aspects of SLAVERY.
- d) The Massachusetts and Pennsylvania regiments reported to secure Washington DC from threats of the Richmond newspapers and elsewhere, not to enter Virginia it is true. But in March at Lincoln's inauguration he explained that he would enforce the laws, which meant collecting customs at the ports, and he made preparation to do so, even while withdrawing federal marshals. Secessionists had no oath to destroy the nation, while Lincoln took an oath to preserve it.
- e) ex-governor Henry Wise and his extra-legal secessionist militias seized the U.S. arsenal at Harper's Ferry and the U.S. naval yard by force of arms in May 1861, without authorization of the Virginia state legislature, secessionist convention, U.S. Congress, -- or the C.S. Congress -- the article says that there was no conspiracy for secession. Virginia's irregularly held referendum on secession was held May 1861. There was nothing about the secessionist movement which was 'peacefully in the bag' at any time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I like to speculate too--but only on the talk page :) More and more the Confed Congress represented men who had lost their homes--(ie behind Yankee lines) and were willing to gamble everything on Confed independence. People who had real homes and farms and plantations (behind Confed lines) did not want to gamble everything they had left. The result was that hardliners more and more controlled Congress, making a compromise deal impossible (such as the one Lincoln offered in person in Feb. 1865: we will but your slaves for $$ if you come back to the Union now.) Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"Mike18xx asserts without discussion here..." -- See Wikipedia:Be bold. "...to alter the consensus..." -- The new consensus lasted a few days with my edit being in the fore before you came in to boldly change it back while simultaneously posting a big list of reasons here in in talk -- which is exactly the same thing I did, so I fail to why you're criticizing me for doing what you also did. ;-)
You might observe that this article used to be in the "good article" category on Wikipedia, but no longer is. I would assert that there are sound reasons for that, and that declining veracity has a decent shot at being one of them.
(a) The article version you reverted to reads "The American Civil War...was a civil war fought over the secession of the Confederate States" -- this erroneously implies (and revisionists love it when they tell it as a lie) that secession was the reason for the onset of the war (rather than the overt military assault on Fort Sumter). (Once this spurious "fact" is locked down in perception, the revisionist will then segue into even more spurious claims of unilateral northern aggression in order to foster the illusion of the South as a rape-victim.) The truth of the matter is that Lincoln wasn't going to invade the south -- the article already mentions this; therefore, by inexorable logical conclusion, the war cannot have been "fought over" secession any more than it was "fought over" slavery. Like most wars, it was "fought over" the fact that one side started it and wasn't about to quit until it was victorious or ground into capitulation. The salient fact that the South started the war is the one over-riding fact Confederate revisionists incessantly attempt to bury. Claiming it was about secession segues into claims of states-rights-denied and gosh-wasn't-Lincoln-a-ravaging-tyrant-warmonger-slavering-for-war-from-the-outset-of-secession, which is total BS propaganda. If either cause is named, it would actually be more true to say the war was fought over slavery than secession since slavery was the reason for secession in the first place -- but the revisionists won't hear of that, as it necessarily implies the Confederacy was morally repugnant.
(b) If "Lincoln...stated (his) intention to restore the union by U.S. elections without a fight in the southern states," -- That plainly means "without a war". So, OK...I'm not sure why you're reverting my edits, then, if you're not really disagreeing with my rationale for making said edits. Additional note: "political promises" on the campaign trail mean nothing; what matters is actions -- and the most action Lincoln took in the short time before Sumter was resupplying a fort.
(c) "The reason for the war was explained on both sides as a difference over slavery" -- No; that's the reason for the secession, not the reason for the war. Consensus or not, it's factually wrong. The reason for the war is the attack upon Fort Sumter -- if the instigators of the attack thought they were going to just get away with such a dramatic escalation, they were, charitably, quite stupid. (Whether or not Lincoln's resupplying a militarily impotent fort constituted a provocation is immaterial; the Japanese had similar excuses for Pearl Harbor regarding US bases in the Philippines and what-not. The simple fact of the matter is if you declare war via violent assault, you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself in one.)
(d.1) "The Massachusetts and Pennsylvania regiments reported to secure Washington DC from threats" -- "Threats" from whom? ...Jefferson Davis' March proclamation to create a 100,000-man army was, shall we say, slightly provocative, no?
(d.2) "But in March at Lincoln's inauguration, he explained that he would enforce the laws, which meant collecting customs at the ports" -- A politician's lips moved while making generic, bland statements about enforcing laws in a speech at the swearing-in function. But the article already states he had no intention of invading the South (i.e., "enforce"). Lincoln had about as much ability to collect customs in the seceded South as Guantanamo Bay has of taxing Cuba.
(d.3) "and he made preparation to do so, even while withdrawing federal marshals" -- that's self-contradictory; and Lincoln had precisely zero ability to collect sans an overt invasion which he had no intention of doing.
(e) "ex-governor (Henry A. Wise) and his extra-legal secessionist militias seized the U.S. arsenal at Harper's Ferry and the U.S. naval yard by force of arms in May 1861" -- May 1861 is after the attack upon Fort Sumter. (I'm not sure what you're getting at here, since it directly supports both my assessment that Southern provocateurs sincerely thought they could win a military conflict, as well as my assessment that said initial events were the actions of aggressive local players rather than implemented public policies of a consolidated Confederate government.)
BTW: What was your rationale for removing the timeline I added to the lede involving the short but critical period between secession and the attack upon Fort Sumter? I.e., do you not think Jefferson Davis' March 1861 proclamation to create a 100,000-man southern army is relevant to the topic?--Mike18xx (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- a) The phrase “fought over the secession” is carefully crafted to neutrally state, concisely, that one party “would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” It is difficult to follow an argument which asserts that a restatement of Lincoln’s inaugural somehow anticipated the screeds of later Lost Cause revisionists. I cannot be responsible for how my deceased cousin Ludwell interpreted history -- just along the lines you outline above -- but I argued sometimes, I am ashamed to say, with little charity. I regret both my heat and my tone with the old man, perhaps now that I am an old man myself, maybe that has something to do with it, but I still think he was wrong.
- b) We are agreed in the article the Confederacy started the conflict. I was careful to say, “explained by both sides”. Lincoln: “All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.”
- c) Lincoln: “Neither party expected for the war [to attain] the magnitude or the duration … Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.” The "idiots", as you characterize them, they may all – on every side, everyone of them, the living and the dead – all may have been idiots, but here we write about them as with all historical figures in all times, in a neutral way, regardless of our personal assessment of their sagacity and our own unerring hindsight.
- [aside] It is of some interest, whether there is ever anything worth dying for. However that may perchance be, any such view is distributed differently across populations over time. According to Strauss and Howe’s “Generations”, the ACW was begun amidst the adaptive ‘compromisers’ like Buchanan, led by the idealist ‘transcendentals’ like Lincoln, and fought by the reactive ‘gildeds’ like Grant, consistent with their four-cycle generational paradym. A must-read for anyone looking to break artificial boundaries of academe specialty -- a game changer for scholarly mindset -- things do not happen in a decade, they happen across the interaction of three generations: the elders, midlife and rising adults -- youth are being shaped.
- d) On Davis’ 100,000 before Lincoln’s 70,000 call, Coulter (p.308) has the Provisional Congress in Montgomery enacting the bill February 28, 1861. On May 8, Davis could receive up to 400,000 directly, without going through state militias, at which point v.p. Stevens of Georgia went ballistic for the duration. I was the editor who sourced the fact into the CSA article. Again, we are agreed as to the facts. I think that it is hugely significant. -- If anything, history is the study which attaches meaning to sequence, so the chronology of mobilization matters. It goes in this article perhaps in “Secession winter” section? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

'Good Article' status as a goal?

@Mike18xx made a suggestion that we look at what would make this a GA article again:

- a) I like the idea of qualifying the article for GA status. Isn’t there a check list somewhere to work through from when it was delisted? On some articles, there is a link in the talk into block?
- b) For GA status, the article must be stable. In the last week we got trashed by raging adolescent hormones because some species of male mammal made like a human being, awakening to a new awareness which as I remember, is so personally compelling as to be quite overwhelming at the onset. But is there any way Wikipedia can spare the rest of us with an increase the article’s level of protection?
- c) For GA status, the article must be without edit wars. A modern Georgia corporation, CSA, Inc., has a charter with the “bloodstained banner” as its emblem that editors try to impose on the infobox every few weeks. Problem is, primary and secondary sources say no one ever saw it during the life of the CSA or the ACW. Can drive-bys can be limited by a higher level of article protection?
- d) Is there a criteria for that? This is about a civil war, someone out there is bound to feel something unscholarly, which all are free to express at Talk, at least to some degree. Can't we acknowledge that and take steps to protect the article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak: A single page in a single source refuting multiple revisionists?

I'm certainly not a revisionist, nor am I qualified to enter into the larger arguments regarding the causes of the CW (most of them up there↑), but I want to point out that the following statement is particularly weak:

Causes of secession
The causes of the Civil War were complex, and have been controversial since the war began. The issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to improve the image of the South by lessening the role of slavery.[7]

If you look at that reference, you'll see that it points to a single page from a single source.

James C. Bradford, A companion to American military history (2010) vol. 1, p. 101

Yet it's an attempt to refute multiple revisionists. That doesn't seem particularly cogent.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

the sentence in the article is also contradicting itself. because the causes were complex, it makes no sense to oversimply them by reducing the reasons to slavery, like it is presented in the article. for example, if not exactly a cause of the war, it was an inherit danger that the usa could fall apart further, when the next political differences arise. the south could have gained more states over time as well. id call it naive to think that none of the politicians and analysts kept that in mind while going to war, reintegrating the states and de facto ending the secession. life is usually more complex than having just 2 positions where only one can be completely right, especially on such matters.--84.160.252.25 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a question of "refuting" anybody, it's a matter of explaining what different schools of historians argued and why. That's what historiography is all about. Rjensen (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The historiography now makes a distinction between the causes of the ACW and the goals of the ACW. The causes of the ACW were various, but all were related to slavery in one way or another, and the article tries -- both in the narrative and in the historiographic references -- to reflect the field of study in all its diversity and complexity.
- The goal of the ACW on the part of the secessionists was -- independence. On the government's part it was -- Union. Everything else was about the means, which is why emancipation was considered on both sides. This is over-simplified for end-of-course testing in secondary education, "The 'first' U.S. goal of the Civil War was union, a 'second' goal was emancipation."
- In Gallagher's "The Union war", a majority for U.S. emancipation grew 1860-1866 based on several arguments. The impulse was begun by a) moral imperative in the eyes of God as understood by Abolitionists. It was enlarged in the pre-conscription loyalists 1860-1862 to b) fulfill the ideals of the American republic. Then to get the majority in the House 1862-1863, c) gain necessary manpower to suppress the rebellion (laborers, growers, pioneers, teamsters, railroad repair, soldiers in garrison and combat).
- And finally to get the super-majorities in the Senate and from the states 1864-1865, d) punish the aristocratic and financial basis of the rebellion by ending its wealth. -- Four steps of widening political coalition which would have been impossible without four years of bloodletting, hence, McPherson's emphasis on CONTINGENCY. Without lasting long enough to persuade super-majorities in loyal states -- both slave-holding and free -- to abolish slavery nation-wide, the war would have ended with slavery in the loyal states, a different scenario for future efforts at 20th century civil rights, etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

End of war info box date

The Info Box says the war ended by declaration on May 9, 1865, but in the article the date is placed for April 9. 96.51.30.37 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo caption

I am new to this and so if someone reads this and thinks it belongs elsewhere on this page feel free to move it. I was unable to figure out how to begin a new article topic. I just wanted to start a discussion. The photograph captioned "Slaves posed planting Sweet potatoes by a waiting cart" shows several men wearing what looks like military style hats. In fact they seem to be Union Army hats. If this is so it seems that perhaps this photograph might have been taken AFTER the end of the civil war for it they are slaves and are wearing Union Army hats would it not have enraged their southern masters? I find it difficult to believe that their masters would have permitted them to wear Confederate Army hats so this is very curious. Perhaps I am mistaken and this was simply a common hat style of the period but since I have never seen slaves wear this style in any of the tens of thousands of photographs I have seen of slaves I found it curious. Does anyone have documented provenence for this photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.135.12 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link which gives some details about the photo. The caption reads "African American men and women hoe and plow the earth while others cut piles of sweet potatoes for planting. One man sits in a horse-drawn cart." Additional notes have this as being circa 1862-63 and "From "U. S. Navy. Edisto Island. Morris and Folly Islands. Fort Warren, Mass. Andersonville Prison, Miscellaneous." photographic album, p 63 (Edisto Island)."
I wouldn't draw any conclusions about why they have those uniforms and hats as a number of possibilities exist. There is a good chance that these photos were taken in 1863 after the Union took Charleston. If you search on "James Hopkinson" here then you will see that there are other photos taken at the same locale.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are there objections to WP:CITE?

Regarding [1], this is not a major change. This article is already using list-defined references (WP:LDR): not one, not two, but few dozens: [2]. My edit was simply standardizing this article to one format, something clearly recommended by WP:CITEVAR, part of WP:CITE: Variation in citation methods, section "Generally considered helpful": "Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles". As this article currently has dozens of refs in LDR style, standardizing all of them to that is simply a technical edit following in the wake of practice of others who have edited this article before (I was not the one to introduce LDR here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You will find the majority of content editors and ref fixers simply despise the LDR system. As its does not allow for section editing thus is not user-friendly. That said only one format should be used here at a time and we should pick one.Moxy (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

CSA hardliners were already in control from the start

From above:

The war was going on a year old before any appreciable amounts of territory started changing hands. The implication of your argument is that hardliners were not already in control of the Confederacy at the moment they started the war.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

- Important amounts of territory were never in control of the hardliners at the moment they started the war, and they LOST appreciable amounts BEORE the first year was out. Lets look at five the landslide-union southern states contested during the rebellion.
- TWO MONTHS into the war, by June 20, western Virginia, the trans-Alleghany counties composing one-third of Virginia territory, established the “Restored State of Virginia”. Two senators and five of Virginia’s 13 congressional districts were represented in the 37th U.S. Congress. Confederate disruption around Fairfax and Norfolk polling places reduced representation to three districts in the newly created West Virginia for the 38th Congress.
- By July 26, THREE MONTHS into the war, Confederate government had lost control of Tennessee and could maintain it in the east only under martial law of military occupation. One senator and three representatives were in the 37th Congress. The east-west violence and revenge killings in Tennessee is a tragedy within a tragedy, a 'war of brothers'.
- The Union NEVER lost effective control of Missouri. Although contested with funding of a million dollars (Coulter, p. 48), the Confederate troops could not be raised, and the Missouri population was permanently under Union control within THREE MONTHS by July 1861, Confederate government and military presence was gone by August, four months into the war. Missouri was represented in the 37th and 38th Congresses with two senators and all 7 representatives. Raiding activity required an entire infantry division to subdue it.
- There was never sustained rebellion in Kentucky, though Confederate forces, funded with a million dollars (Coulter, p. 46) challenged Union control over two offensives and at least two large-scale cavalry raids. September 1861, Kentucky went from “neutral” to Union FIVE MONTHS after the war began, and was continuously in both the 37th and 38th Congresses. The exile government accompanied a Confederate army for the duration, hoping for an opening to set up shop on re-entry into the state.

Territory and control

- In Louisiana, [insert] ABOUT A YEAR after hostilities initiated, April 1862, a majority of the population AND territory changed into Union hands. The Unionist sentiment in and around New Orleans justified two of the four apportioned U.S. representatives in the 37th Congress, but the state remained disrupted. No representation was seated for the 38th Congress due to the low turnout. A congressional investigation of the army occupation followed.
- Additionally, FIRST YEAR's end, UNION disruption of Confederate-claimed territory extended into strategic river territory of west Tennessee, Arkansas, northern Alabama and Mississippi, and included every major southern port but those at Galveston TX and Mobile AL (Anderson, “Naval History of the Civil War”). The Confederacy expanded their railroad net inland at Galveston and Mobile during the conflict. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Important amounts of territory were never in control of the hardliners at the moment they started the war..." -- I wasn't making that argument. You're conflating two disparate aspects: "appreciable" amounts of territory changing hands (I'll stipulate I should have specified "as a result of knock-down, drag-out warfare" in order to make clear what I getting at), and hardliners being control of the Confederate government (not territory). --Mike18xx (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- All true. We just might be on the same page. see new Talk section, 'Intro para #4 reverts.
Fortunately, there's nothing like the Official Records of the American Civil War for a comprehensive view of the initial geographic control. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. Saying something is 'seceded' when few or none vote for it and rebel armies abandon the place -- such as Missouri -- cannot have much weight in scholarship. Though as always, ORA can be used in conjunction with secondary sources. It is a record of military movement across terrain, something very different than government. I think the secessionists used a crescent flag like South Carolina's over a captured fort on the Missouri-Iowa border, but it was soon abandoned, and events at St. Louis proved Iowa and Missouri conclusively unionist for the populated areas, the banditry of Jesse James in the 1870s, notwithstanding, as we have previously discussed on these Talk pages.
- Evolving territorial control CANNOT be accurately portrayed on a single-tinted area denoting governmental control on a map. And if we resort to that convention, governmental control of 80-100% of the population should count for something in largely unsettled 1800s regions of a given state. Geographer Robert D. Kaplan in his recent "Revenge of Geography" suggests monotone maps MISrepresent governmental control, and suggests fading converging tones approaching borders with ethnic groups on either side -- depending on their distributions in adjacent border regions.
- In the ACW, such a map would have counties in a tone of blue 1861-1865 in the upland and mountainous regions of at least SIX 'Confederate states' -- Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. These could be objectively identified by (a) congressional districts MAINTAINING U.S. congressional representation, (b) congressional districts VACATED of C.S. congressional representation with pro-peace or unionist majorities, and (c) expanded in some scholarly way to include regions where bands of locals prohibited Confederate conscription in other states as well.
- That is, it is not only of interest where the extension of Union government is disrupted, it is also of interest where the extension of Confederate government is disrupted during the civil war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- and, speaking of ORA and its contributions to our understanding of initial territorial control ---
- if I did not take this opportunity to celebrate Thomas J. Jackson, my Virginia countrymen would NEVER let me hear the end of it. His several-WEEKS-long Confederate control of the borderlands of the Ohio River Valley was effected by rapidly deploying and re-deploying his troops for action all along the extent of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad.
- Our nuanced-toned Kaplan map showing the first six months of hostilities would show Confederate control over substantial swaths of a FOUR-STATE borderland where Virginia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania meet. Western federal troops had to be routed north into congested traffic jams at Philadelphia and Baltimore on their way to Washington.
- On his withdrawal, Stonewall Jackson's Virginians brought back military supplies and STRATEGICALLY important railroad rolling stock of several hundred cars. And this is blindingly startling, weeks-long situation is lost to anyone who only reads conventional historiography with its accounts of federal troop trains delayed in multi-guage teamster transfers between railroad stations in BALTIMORE. --
- This is just to point out that a crucial impetus for the log-jam is -- Jackson's occupation and military railroad relay along the C&O RR -- and that understanding of the situation on the ground cannot be found in Yankee newspapers of the time, it is only available to the readers of the Official Records of the Armies, as referenced by Til Eulenspiegel in the trans-Mississippi cases of early Confederate territorial control in Missouri and Iowa, Oklahoma and Kansas immediately following the Union recall of regular Army troops to the defense of Washington, DC.
- (But as I have said, armies maneuvering over terrain -- while important in MILITARY articles -- and transitory occupation -- such as Quantrill's raid occupying a Lawrence KS hotel for 20 hours without control of any surrounding populations -- cannot be counted as GOVERNANCE here at ACW.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

This article is a lie revision of history.

The issues leading to the civil war was overspending (debt), imports and exports out of country, and use of (hardly paid) slave labor. Rights for blacks.

Lincoln had been a slave owner, hadn't said nice things about blacks, and used them at the end of the war in very bad battles when it looked like the north might not win.

Thomas Jefferson on the other hand put Freedom for Blacks in the very first Constitution (which the Torries made him remove). Thomas was a Constitutionalists - against any powerful overpaid government in America. And infact all of Europe was in a bustle with similar talk in that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.81.201 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear... would I be far off-base to surmise that someone is a sophomore being swindled of his educational loan money by his Hate America Studies professor at one of our tarnished institutions of higher dislearning? Look: if the Southern states were incensed about national debts, import/exports, and so on to the point of bon-voy-agee, you'd think they would mention them prominently in their secession documents -- no? Every skedaddling state wrote one; and all of these documents are easily found online via your favorite search-engine. But you're not going to find the ever-tweaked laundry list of complaints from your favorite cranks in those secession documents -- because the one and major issue of great concern to EVERY state which seceded prior to Sumter was ...drum roll please... SLAVERY!. *Ding* We have a winner.--Mike18xx (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- We want you to start using sources to back up what you say. Let's see. Tariffs -- LOWER TARIFFS helped slave-owners, but increased national debt. the Mexican War brought more SLAVE TERRITORY and slave states, but increased national debt. More western land sales lowered national debt, but violence over slave or free territory like Kansas LOWERED LAND SALES revenues, so 'Bleeding Kansas' increased the national debt. Looking at the aggregate debt the year after off-year elections in the run-up to the Civil War, 1835 – $0.4 million, 1843 – $32.7 million, 1851 – $68.3 million, 1859 – $58.5 million -- so 'debt' per se did not cause the Civil War. Debt source, TreasuryDirect
- [insert] In a world before personal and corporate income taxes -- all of U.S. early history -- most federal revenues were from LAND SALES, about 1/4 to 1/2 of that from TARIFFS, depending on the Congress. Generally commercial states were against going to war, because war disrupts trade. New Englanders got a two-fer with HIGHER tariffs. First, because that's where the water power was, that's where the first water-wheel industry was before steam: tariffs could help develop New England industry, population, power in the House of Representatives. Second, agricultural state interests benefitted from an expanding frontier adding farming-based states in the Senate. But paying higher tariffs helped northerners and caused pain to the southern trading ports without industry, so there was a financial cost imposed on the south for going to war that was not counterbalanced by industrial growth. And it was felt in the south long after the returning war heros were elected to office (and that's how Lincoln in a western, mostly agricultural 1840s state, lost his Congressional seat after the Mexican War). [end-insert]
- Most northern loyalists and virtually all southern whites thought little about 'rights for blacks', until after much bloodshed over three years of war, when the political needle began to move, (1) first moral arguments did not persuade many, then (2) more wanted manpower help to defeat the rebellion, then (3) big majorities really wanted to punish the wealthy aristocrats who -- in their view -- had brought the country so much waste of life and destruction of property and squandered treasure. -- The votes of this last majority with ALL THREE parts provided the basis for the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteen Amendments concerning the "Rights for blacks". See Gary W. Gallagher's "The Union war", it has an online feature at Amazon Look Inside.
- Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence did indeed censure the British King for kidnapping free Africans into slavery and bringing them to the Americas. But it is not EXACTLY as you say -- see a pretty good article at Wikipedia on the Declaration of Independence. All lovers of history are welcome. Read up some more. Stay with it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a good idea of why this article is no longer a "Good Article"

For one, the unseemly rush to archive everything older than thirty days -- which simply results in everything in Talk being flushed down an inconvenient memory hole, meaning the same garbage is likely to appear again and again in Talk and the article. Articles elsewhere, even contentious ones, are operating perfectly fine with little to NO archiving -- and, from the point of view of an editor who likes to be able to word-find on a consolidated page, that's preferable.--Mike18xx (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

- As a partial, stop-gap action, I moved the Talk header FAQ section adjacent to the article index. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

GA checklist at Peer Review

We can make a 15-point checklist at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Civil War/archive3 as the article read in March 2011.
1. five paragraph lead v. four. WP:LEAD 4-para. intro. stable for 20 hours 11/30.tvh.
3. Sentences at the end of a paragraph without references. transitions of generally understood facts in the field per read 11/30.tvh.
4. Quotes, statistics and claims need ref WP:CITE and WP:V per read and edit search 11/30.tvh.
5. internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed.
6. sources not WP:RS. Spartacus Educational, Confederates in the attic. Challenged sources not found 11/30.tvh.
10. Concerns about plagiarism, properly sourcing, quoting and paraphrasing. Signpost/2009-04-13 Most text has been rewritten for encyclopedic style by multiple collaborating editors since March 2011.11/30.tvh.
9. Memory and historiography had only two items. expanded. Needed civil war memorials, Army of the Republic done. -- and regimental organizations north and south, presidents who were civil war veterans, Gettysburg reunions. This and other WP:WEIGHT issues.
2. References required in The Confederacy and Reconstruction sections. 'Confederacy renamed Secession and war.
7. Choppy prose, one- and two-sentence paragaphs. done.
8. Reconstruction should be a subsection of results or aftermath. done.
11. Merge free soil and slave power sections apart from slavery section. found in 1.2 causes: sectionalism.
12. Andersonville pic in emancipation had not been dropped. done.
13. Charleston photo in Surrender section caused whitespace. done. images follow WP:ACCESS
14. Need for ACW historiography section to complement ACW bibliography. done in 4-part References.
15. No mention of Lost Cause. included in paragraph intro, Memory and historiography.
Several of these items are completed or have had substantial work since March 23, 2011. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I see six remaining peer-review points to address.
copyedits for #s 1, 3, 10. citations for #s 4, 5, 6.
Of course, they overlap. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delisting article GA rating

ACW was delisted from Good Article status at GA reassessment ACW/2 July 28, 2012.

Here was the line-up, with summary remarks.

ACW was delisted from GA status by Wikipedia consensus: Delist-2, Keep-3, Not voting-1.

Systematic bias deserves closer inspection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per editor critiques of the article reviewed, from BOTH those who would delist AND keep GA status,
At this time, I believe 'Slavery' and 'Territorial crisis' are the two sections MOST in need of copyediting into encyclopedic style, with portions moved to the appropriate 'main article'.
I would add copyedit of the lead five paragraphs, noted in the peer review, to be brought to Talk before article page edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting the lede

I have rewritten the clunky first paragraph of the lede. I am unhappy with both the current 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (the 2nd in particular, as in implies Republican anti-slavery seemingly parachuted in out-of-the-blue in 1860 rather than being a culmination of over a decade of building impetus); and will attempt to merge them tonight. Unless someone else saves me the trouble by doing it first (hint, hint ;-).--Mike18xx (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good beginning, amended by two editors following your initiative. Let's keep going all the way through for a first round.
I tried my hand at Paragraph 2-3 to consolidate and make concise, keeping all major points, adding election returns secessionists read.
But I entirely lost No foreign government recognized the Confederacy.
I can't figure out where to put it in the INTRODUCTION. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
For old paragraph #4 and #5, I consolidated paragraphs, copyedited for conciseness, placed events in chronological order.
Introduction Strategy: volunteer army, control border states, union blockade, dissuading British recognition, slavery a war goal, destruction of Confederate western navy and armies, control of Mississippi split Confederacy, Lee's two northern incursions, Grant assumed command of all armies, Sherman took Atlanta and marched to the sea destroying infrastructure, Union marshaled resources and manpower for battles of attrition, defending Confederate army failed to hold Richmond and surrendered.
Introduction Battles: Fort Sumter, Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Overland Campaign and Appomattox.
Introduction Generals: Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman.
So, with consolidation of old #2-#3 and old #4-#5, we now have a FOUR paragraph introduction per WP:LEAD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I reworked it to add Europe/King Cotton and drop minor details on the US regular army (which did not do much fighting). Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with your edit. I have posted what I hope can be received as a balanced account of the Confederate 100,000 using all four sources among Mikexx, Rjensen and TVH at American Civil War#Mobilization.
- I mean to restore the 4-paragraph intro with conributions from Mikexx, JimWae, Rjensen and TVH.
- We will see if THIS two-section collaboration will carry. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Systematic bias – remove ACW -?-

So one of the successful editors delisting ACW from GA rating called for its extinction at Wikipedia due to systematic bias. But the point of WP:BIAS relates to international diversity and distribution across cultural, political and physical boundaries around the world.
- I fear our critical editor believes Lost Cause or Confederacy-triumphant scholarship should have equal weight with a preponderance of academic scholarship. At WP:NPOV Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, with little bias, the major views in published by reliable sources. -- The editor describing disputes is not to engage in them. In non-judgmental language, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. -- Avoid bias by (a) stating opinions “from the source”, not as facts. (b) stating as “source opinions” when facts are contested among reliable sources. (c) represent uncontested facts without coloring them as opinion. (d) supply a reliable source when an editor unfamiliar with the field asks for your backup.
- However, I see a possible issue with “historical perspectives” as discussed there. Although amazingly, despite the article’s length, it seems as though the U.S. historiography available hardly seems to have been scratched. See Rjensen’s Civil War Bibliography.
- Historical perspectives in this article as written DOES seem U.S.-centered. WP:BIAS would have perspectives from outside the U.S. in addition to the article’s look at British and French diplomacy.
(1) Additional sources may be had from diplomatic historians in Brazil (pro-Confederate), Mexico (pro-Union) and such as found in “Spain and the American Civil War” By Wayne H. Bowen (equivocal).
(2) Are there additional international scholars where there was a great deal of cross-border activity during the ACW, such as Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and Cuba?
(3) Can we find additional takes from other nations who would approach ACW from nations with substantial communities of Confederate expatriates such as Mexico and Brazil?
(4) Are there schools of civil war scholarship -- in history or political science -- addressing ACW in English-speaking India, Liberia, Sierra Leone or Jamaica, in China or in Columbia which we do not have ready access to except by internet? -- This could be a particular strength of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Is there an international scholarly association which might publish a journal of such scholarship?
- As I say, the systematic bias issue bears investigation by contributing editors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
world scholars with freshj perspectives: not. There are few non-American scholars in the field. They work chiefly in the UK and Canada and do not hold dstinctive interpretations. The idea that systemic bias (based on US residence) exists on this topic is not true--it is speculation that is not based on any evidence and is not accepted by any scholar I have read. (There are numerous schools of thought INSIDE the US of course, but no such school OUTSIDE it.) Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that it is not "systematic bias", but rather systemic bias that is addressed by WP:BIAS. The idea of deleting the article as remedial is preposterous. The cure for systemic bias is always to introduce more viewpoints as called for, not to squelch entire articles. This idea should be a non starter and never taken seriously.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-What he said. But the article WAS delisted, and that view was 50% of editor input to delist GA at the time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying it is time to revisit the article's GA status? But the dust isn't even settled on the 4-paragraph 'Introduction' yet. -- aaaah, that came out as more timid than I would have liked. --
- What's our next step on the road to GA status, Til Eulenspeigel? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know for sure. The article briefly mentions the Crittenden Resolution near the beginning of the war, but when I read about that, it struck me as ironic that, at around the same time the southern states were issuing declarations that secession was necessary to preserve slavery, at that time it was the Union that dissembled about the cause of war and said it was nothing to do with slavery. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems the editor who brought up the issue of systemic bias has "retired" from Wikipedia, so there is no way to ask this person just what their issue was.Dubyavee (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It was de-listed for being too long and not being written in summary style. Someone mentioned systemic bias in passing, but to say it was de-listed for that is incorrect. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the reasons why see link and chart at #Delisting article GA rating section above. (a) one delister said, "too long - fork three sections". (b) the one other delister said, "more battles" and "systemic bias", -- which we all now here discount.
- That leaves the last delisting review vote at GA Delist--1 until three forks (--accomplished) -- versus -- GA Keep--3 with 2 wanting to shorten it (--accomplished), -- versus -- No.vote--1, (--editors differ about slavery as a cause observed).
- So now that the article is shorter and main article forks are created for all three items, Is ACW ready for GA status? -- not FA -- but GA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Davis calls for 100,000 soldiers

User Mikexx wants to add JDavis call for 100,000 soldiers to the lede because he says it was "provocative." Not so. As historians note: "In his message of April 29 to the rebel Congress, Jefferson Davis proposed to organize and hold in readiness for instant action an army of 100,000." That was after Ft Sumter and the war had begun, weeks after Lincoln called for 75,000 men. By then Davis was too late to be "provocative"--it was part of the mobilization of both sides, which the lede does include. see John George Nicolay; John Hay (1890). Abraham Lincoln: A History. p. 264. The lede is a brief summary of the article & the whole war and topics like this not covered in detail in the article do not fit. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait.
(1) February 28. We have historian Merton Coulter (CSA, p.308), first page of Chapter XV, "Raising Troops", saying February 28, 1861 the Confederate Congress authorized JDavis "to accept at this discretion state troops offered by the governors ... but the next month their number was limited to 100,000". On May 8, "any number of volunteers for the duration of the war", and three days later, "without the delay of state consent".
(2) March 6. We have Matloff, Maurice (1973). "American Military History" online, Chap. 9 The Civil War", "Secession, Sumter, and Standing to Arms", writing, "To provide his fledgling government with a military force, on on March 6 the new Confederate Executive, Jefferson Davis, called for a 100,000-man volunteer force to serve for twelve months."
Fort Sumter April 12-13. Monday April 15, Lincoln's call.
(3) April 29. We have Nicholay's memoir having JDavis initiating Confederate mobilization in an address on April 29.
So, if we have THREE conflicting facts, the differing facts must be represented as an opinion of each source, see WP:NPOV.
And, if Rjensen and Mikexx want to hash out when the 100,000 occurred, so what? What happened to my four-paragraph intro copyedit which can stand with or without reference or placement to JDavis 100,000 in the INTRODUCTION. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
TWO_PART CHALLENGE.
I have posted what I hope can be received as a balanced account of the Confederate 100,000 using all four sources among Mikexx, Rjensen and TVH at American Civil War#Mobilization. Please read the note through, I ALWAYS need sympathetic assistance on notes.
- I mean to restore the 4-paragraph intro with conributions from Mikexx, JimWae, Rjensen and TVH.
- The idea is all vantage points can be written up in a more accurate that is more compelling than a one-note drum beat.
- Like the song said, 'nobody's right, if everybody's wrong". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Civil War and Language

I'll just give you all something to ponder: What's the difference between saying "A woman and her slave" and "A woman and her slaver" ? Other than the extra R? The former humanizes the slaveholder and objectifies the enslaved woman - a practice upon which slavery itself was predicated upon. The latter humanizes the enslaved woman and is honest about the role of the slaveholder. Why shouldn't we, in 2012, consider a shift in language to reflect that these were events that happened to people, perpetrated by other people, rather than defending the rights of slaveholders to be seen as human while the enslaved remain mere property? It's actually an important distinction, especially in light of both slavery's legacy, and it's continuation into the present. I leave this for you to consider amongst yourselves. I'll probably keep on changing the text of that image, until someone forwards a legitimate reason for keeping it as is. Chaosthethird (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

- Perfectly good point. Though the child is not a woman, another contemporary tinderbox controversy of language and law. I joined the two pictures into a double image (dropped another one only for clutter) because I thought these two concisely summarize two important aspects -- alternative realities of 'house-servant' and 'field-hand' -- about slavery-in-the-antebellum-South.
My direct reply to you:
- Draft #3 pic A: A New Orleans woman and the child she held in slavery, 1850
- And, I’d like your in-put on the caption adjacent, which has been heretofore highly controversial over the nature of the scarring, and somewhat controversial over the historical context and significance. My earlier draft-caption(s) have been reverted three times, so I thought I’d give it a rest. -- But, now that you are here, -- FYI, most recently on ACW:
- Draft #1 pic B: Abolitionists opposed whipping as barbaric [n.]
- Draft #2 pic B [article 11/27]: This 1863 photo was distributed in the North during the war.[n.]
- As in all historiography, narrative is made up of the selections we make and the relationships we interpret. Here are two others, also different in levels of concreteness and abstraction, but communicating different perspectives. The never-ending problem is conciseness in captioning. I like to limit it to three lines, -- I object to editors who string out five-six-seven-lined blocks of text, just as a matter of visual balance.
- Draft #3: pic B: Slave whip-scarred, 1863. Abolitionists distributed the photo.[n.]
- Draft #4 pic B: Man whipped in slavery. His owner fired the overseer.[n.]
- I believe caption pic-A draft#3 and caption pic-B draft#4 TOGETHER communicate something of the complex social relationships of the time in the institution of slavery, both for those holding slaves and for those held as slaves. -- and THANK YOU for bringing Lincoln's important distinction between one's being versus one's condition to this Talk page.
- Please comment or add a draft for pic A or add a draft for pic B. -- and welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We aren't here to right great wrongs and "correct" common usage. Your novel preference goes against the sources which is ample enough reason in policy to reject it. Further, you don't seem to know the difference between slaver and slaveholder...there is no slaver in the photo. That is what happens when you go off half-cocked.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, well, lets NOT use "Slaver" as it is unseemingly provocative and abusive, and in some circles it ranks right up there with the term "slave-breeder" that got Charles Sumner nearly beat to death.
- So at "right great wrongs" it says, "we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources".
- Both my proposed captions, (a) A New Orleans woman and the child she held in slavery, 1850, and (b) Man whipped, his owner fired the overseer, are found in the verifiable secondary sources describing the respective photos as Wikimedia Commons.
- I'll go with those. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoa @ Chaosthethird. You can say, "Humanizing the enslaved woman is not nonsense";
- YOU MUST NOT SAY but good to see Wikipedia remains the digital HQ of white supremacy.
- Perhaps an administrator can explain. I'm taking a little break here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

'Slavery' section -- double image.

  • I joined the two pictures into a double image to concisely illustrate two important aspects of slavery in the antebellum South. – alternative realities, (a) 'house-servant' and (b) 'field-hand'.
- Both my proposed captions are found in the verifiable secondary sources describing the respective photos as Wikimedia Commons. (a) A New Orleans woman and the child she held in slavery, 1850, and (b) Man whipped, his owner fired the overseer. The text concerning antebellum slavery is supported in both of my captions.
  • My Caption pic A reflects the sensibility of modern scholarship a general reader will find in the 21st century literature of social history, distinguishing between the child's person and her condition of slavery -- as LINCOLN did, so the distinction is not anachronisic. However, It does NOT align with modern gender history which does not always distinguish between female adults and children, referring to them interchangeably as 'women', as we see from contributions by Chaosthethird.
- Scars of a whipped slave (April 2, 1863, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. Original caption: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer. The very words of poor Peter, taken as he sat for his picture." -- Other sources claim that this slave was known as Gordon and photographs show that he joined the U.S. Army with the rank of private and fought in the American Civil war. In Harper's Weekly issues (July 4, 1863) & (July 2, 1864) show woodcuts of Gordon as a slave and then as a U.S soldier.
  • An alternate caption for pic A: Woman with her slave New Orleans, 1850 is satisfactory, but it lacks a sensibility of modern scholarship in social history.
- An alternative caption for pic B: This 1863 photo was distributed in the North during the war -- however true it may be -- is NOT related to the adjacent text, the section topic, or the chronology of the article at this place. -- It should be replaced.
- I propose Man whipped, his owner fired guilty overseer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with the Til Eulenspiegel copyedit, Man whipped; the guilty overseer was fired. I found it anonymously reverted without an entry on the article 'View history' tab this morning. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

'Slavery' section copyedit

ACW Slavery copyedit for conciseness, encyclopedic style.

- Two paragraph copyedit in 'Slavery' section to enclopedic style. Please comment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting URL "viewed [date]".

  • I've begun posting at URL citations, Viewed November 28, 2012. Or "Viewed book cover November 28, 2012." per the 2011 peer review referenced above.
  • A url to a book cover should not be treated the same as a url to a web page which can then simply be searched for a quoted phrase or date. Under Notes, <ref name = > we also see a need to site page numbers to cite them properly.
- The refname keywords, “google” and “google82” are not descriptive or readily verifiable – - likewise with the article’s “confederate’ and “confederate36”, “confederacy” and “confederacy84”, etc.
- Alternative 1: "Huddleston1" or "Vinovski1", where Huddleston wrote "Killing Ground" and Vinovski wrote "Towards a social history" -- or better,
- Alternative 2: “killingground2004”, or “socialhistory1990”, where killingground and socialhistory are keywords from the title and 2004 and 1990 are the dates published. -- Alternative 2 allows a reviewing editor familiar with the literature to quickly scan and recall relevance to the noted text, and to quickly access whether the unpracticed editor has not handled the sources to support the narrative as written.
  • Book notes without page numbers: ‘Sectionalism’ four, ‘States rights’ has two. ‘Lincoln’s policy’ one. These often are passages where editors clustered inline references, which can be more economically given one note number, with multiple work references, along with a bibliographical note.
  • Book note authors without books, in notes 10 and 11, McPherson p. 506-8 versus the later article convention, Territorial crisis, McPherson 2007 p.-. ‘Territorial crisis’ section has Stampp pp.109 - and two others. ‘Nationalism and honor’ has two.
- More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro para #4. Reverts.

- agreed to recent reverts at intro para #4.
  • Reverted: "both sides raised armies as the Union seized control" was reverted as implying the South was not raising armies prior to Sumter.
- FURTHER, a balanced representation is already made in the second sentence of paragraph #3, making the reiteration in para #4 simply bad style in an article to be rewritten so editors can advance its WP rating.
- The narrative must communicate that secessionists began procuring, arming, drilling and mobilizing militarily prior to the 1860 election -- South Carolina increased self-taxation 50% dedicated to militia expansion in 1852, see accounts in Freeling "Road to Disunion" and Heidler "Pulling the Temple Down" -- THEN following the 1860 election, Republican governors, most notably in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois as I remember, mobilized their militias in return, prior to Lincoln's inauguration and Fort Sumter.
  • Reverted: (The presence of the eight remaining pro-slavery border states' delegations in Congress thwarted the incoming Lincoln Administration.) -- unsourced broad characterizations cannot be admitted.
- FURTHER, this one is factually inaccurate. The remaining pro-slavery border state's delegations in Congress ADVANCED the incoming Lincoln Administration in its efforts to restore civil government throughout the south, (a) even through the Republican House losses at midterm -- and (b) with Lincoln in his 1864 fusion Union ticket -- for the first re-election of a president since Andrew Jackson. --
- Andrew Jackson who had put down the South Carolina Nullifiers, and whose portrait hung over Lincoln's War Department telegraph office desk, if memory serves -- gotta see Spielberg's Lincoln movie adaptation of Goodwin's Team of Rivals to see if the movie got it right. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Tom Wheeler describes Lincoln's office at the War Department in "Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War". Seems Lincoln read the telegraph correspondence everywhere in the country -- generals, suttlers, contractors, railroads, ports -- in real time over the Army-owned telegraph. Every sundown Grant in his Memoirs describes stringing telegraph lines from division generals directly to his headquarters using insulated wire, poles erected over roads for wagons and artillery to pass under. ... ... ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Jackson's portrait is in there -- behind Lincoln's head when he is first shown talking in the telegraph office. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

'Territorial crisis' copyedit

ACW Territorial crisis copyedit for conciseness, uniform treatment, one-browser-frame length per WP guidelines.

Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version New version
- 'Territorial crisis copyedit.' Please discuss. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- -box display as amended is removed to new section #Territorial Crisis found below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

GA goal – Dec 2012

- Update 6 Dec 2012 for article peer review 15 Mar 2011 at GA checklist. If the center holds for November’s work,
- #5. internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. is our last work-item for Good Article status.
- Am I missing anything else before it is time for the next peer review? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
We have just witnessed perhaps the most blatant and textbook case of Systemic Bias here in the past few days, and you're asking this? I will oppose any such move as long as this bias is ignored. We have one editor who seems loathe to make any acknowledgment of the military operations conducted by the USA against the Native Americans during and after the Civil War, and this editor is using the most specious and contrived logic I have ever seen to insist on perpetuating the systemic bias. Why the contrived logic to defend this bias? A hundred years ago white people arguing against mentioning the true situation with natives, would not have used such contrived logic, no, 100 years ago they would have just come out and openly admit themselves to be white supremacists who thought so little of non-white cultures as to trivialize them with their propaganda words in any way possible. My, how things have changed since 100 years ago. If this is how "neutral" en.wikipedia is going to be, that "neutrality" plainly has become but a veneer. Your suggestions for correcting this with a section explaining that there were all these military operations west of the Mississippi at the time of this struggle 1861-1865 were excellent ones. But when addressing such blatant systemic bias meets with determined resistance as to deny even a one-sentence intro comparison to the Plains Wars (when it was undeniably the very same cast of Civil War officers who fought against Indians), then I can seek more editors' input at WP:BIAS, then now I can support not restoring GA status, or I can just throw my hands up in disgust at this skewed article telling only "half the story" EAST of Miss. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
(1) It should not be that the article fails GA status for one introductory sentence. Nevertheless, let me say,
- Much of your text above focuses on the military, and I am saddened to say that much "significance" of military things is often unthinking buckets-of-blood counts -- in scholarship now or in "body counts" back in the day. I would like to attach significance to the Trans-Mississippi fighting because the Transcontinental Railroad is building by 1863 due to Union-Oklahoma Tribes two-front success there against Confederates south and Plains Indians west, for instance, as I posted earlier.
(2) It is exactly as you say, we CAN bring more balance -- in the section, "Trans-Mississippi'" -- in the WEST, though Grant kept an Amerindian on his staff throughout the Civil War, clearly pictured in scenes of Lincoln (2012 film) on the River Queen and at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.
- This "not restoring GA status" position is remarkably like those in today's U.S. Senate. In the divisive 1960s, liberal anti-war Proxmire of Wisconsin and conservative pro-war H. Byrd of Virginia hosted an annual cheese and apple-slice wine reception. Your guys are missing some good wine, let me tell you. At Wikipedia the pay-off for collaboration is better-written articles.
(3) My guess is that getting another peer review request in will result in more to do, not automatic GA status. I don't run things, but I could see delaying anything on that front, finishing up the work I can see to do this month, and wait until first of the year for the next step nosing the peanut forward, procedurally that is. And we could expand 'Trans-Mississippi'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're right, time will tell. But my concern over why this article may be conspicuously missing parts of its scope, with my hope that it be rectified in order to truly reach a good article (not just in name), is more genuine than a whole lot of political filibustering. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Duly noted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Varon at Territorial Crisis

- Inspecting the notes in Territorial Crisis, we see Varon, 2008, p. 34 and p. 58. A page search brings no title on this Article page.
- At Bibliography of the American Civil War, we find "Varon, Elizabeth. Disunion: The Coming of the American Civil War 1789–1859. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009".
- The date disparity is probably not a problem with our editor's contribution -- many academics publish at their university press before a volume gets picked up by a general publishing house. But it would be nice to nail down the edition referenced here.
- I take that to be the source, Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. (not Jeremy Varon, 2004 referenced in a 2008 book google finds) -- but pages 24-354 are not part of the preview to be found there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction "Native American perspective"

Likesthisproject, making a contribution in the Introduction explains, "from Native American perspective, omitting Total war against natives a major oversight, as many union officers were also involved in that".

The practices of total war, developed by Sherman in Georgia, and the mobilization of civilian labor and finances, all foreshadowed the war against the plains Indians, as well as World War I in Europe.
- This is noteworthy and should be expanded in the narrative at the trans-Mississippi section because
- (a) the Sand Creek Massacre of 1861 where some Union units refused to obey orders to attack, and the two soldier units suffering casualties were the 1st and 3rd Colorado Cavalry, on investigation resulting in the censure of the colonel commanding.
- (b) the Sioux Uprising of 1862 resulted in Lincoln's noteworthy pardon of 264 of 303 tried.
- (c) The Plains Indians Wars were conducted by General Sherman and General Sheridan after the Civil War in such a "Total War" manner, that the pre-eminent Texas historian T. R. Fehrenbach calls the two Federal officers post-war "folk heros" of Texas -- the only state in the former Confederacy where that is the case.
- I concur in the inclusion in the introduction pending a write-up in 'Trans-Mississippi' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen reverts the phrase "against plains Indians", explaining (a) total wars against indians go back to 1600s (Pequot, King Philip, etc) and (b) no use made in Sioux wars of "mobilization of civilian labor and finances". -- CONCUR, procedurally, as there is no supportive text in the article.

- How-some-ever, as a matter of historiography, just because the theme is recurring does not mean it should not be referred to at each period in which it occurs. The recurring theme in the ACW period is developed by Colin G. Calloway in "The American Revolution in Indian Country". In many ways, the implacable foe of Amerindians was the settlement population of the states adjacent, their allies among the United States were to be found in the national government at Congress.
- In the ACW, the "Native American perspective" sometimes uncritically conflates the blue of Colorado-state and Minnesota-state soldiers and their atrocities with the federal government and the Congress. One may recall Benjamin Franklin objecting to Paxton Boys slaughtering peaceful Amerindian farmers in counties far away from the colonial Pennsylvania frontier war. One may recall that the Virginian Meriwether Lewis as Jefferson's appointed territorial governor, went to humiliating defeat at the first state election of Missouri governor, due to his "pro-Indian" administration of U.S. treaties.
- As Robert D. Kaplan in his bestselling The Revenge of Geography points out in his discussion on Russia, peoples on plains and steppes without geographic barriers either expand or are themselves conquered, leading to an oft-repeated development of bellicose cultures - just ask any Texan about anything. The Plains Indians found in 1860 had displaced the Plains Indians of 1760, and they the Plains Indians of 1660, see the aforementioned Fehrenbach in Lone Star.
- Further, as a matter of substance, aside from paying off the war-debt, the chief expense of national government's finances of the 1870-80s was reducing and relocating the Plains Indians. The nation-wide bi-coastal coordination of civilian resources marshaled to string not one but five railroad trunk lines into the American Plains was nothing short of epic. For a sort of primer on the first one, see Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing like it in the world: the men who built the Transcontinental Railroad.
- The extermination of the buffalo was deliberate policy to remove food supply alternative to the reservation. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall is reported by David D. Smits in The frontier army and the destruction of the buffalo: 1865-1883, as considering that Sherman and Sheridan “viewed the eradication of the buffalo as ‘the critical line of attack’ in the struggle with the plains tribes.” Regardless of direct military activity, excursions of 'hunting trains' would pull into herds of grazing buffalo and fell thousands, piling their pelts in 20-foot heaps along track-side. etcetera. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The Iroquois sachems of the Six Nations trying to school the colonial representatives at the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744 was known to be inspirational for Franklin. Canassetago had said "we brought our Road a great deal more to the Weſt, that we might comply with your Propoſal; but, tho' it was of your own making, your People never obſerved it, but came and lived on our Side of the Hill, which we don't blame you for, as you live at a great Diſtance, near the Seas, and cannot be thought to know what your People do in the Back-parts..." But the assertion that "The Plains Indians found in 1860 had displaced the Plains Indians of 1760, and they the Plains Indians of 1660" sounds like a gross oversimplification, it suggests that none of the various languages spoken on the Plains in 1660 were any longer spoken in 1760 or 1860. there were some newcomer tribes to the plains in that time for sure but it did not result in the total extermination of most of the languages there in 1660.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, apart from any European involvement, there have been centuries of mutual Amerindian-only territorial expansion, consolidation, migration and extermination. Where is the Mound People and their language? But post-Colombian, French-armed tribes in the 1700s who pushed west drove others into the Comanches -- which resulted in extermination of their tribal languages as described in Calloway's The Scratch of a pen:1763 and the transformation of North America, and Frehrenbach. There is great grief and tragedy related to the subsequent history of those once-French-allied tribes as U.S. westward settlement met them again a century later in the 1860s.
- But, on the other hand, here at ACW, since you put the intro Plains Indians line back about total war -- which I agree is appropriately there, justified by the thirty-year U.S.-financed Sherman-Sheridan-Custer activity and nationally-trust-concerted, publicly-taxpayer-subsidized civilian resources in the railroads-west infrastructure -- did YOU want to draft a paragraph on the Plains, or at least Minnesota-Colorado-Oklahoma-Amerindian aspects of the Civil War for the Trans-Mississippi section?
- Without supporting text in the article to carry the point of substance, I think Rjensen could win a technical point on the Introduction parsing. But please, no reference to "systemic bias" without discussion. Besides, wouldn't it be better to flesh out the the narrative here, however short the passage at ACW may be, including the civil war dividing each of the Civilized Tribes by regiments both blue and grey in every tribe? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Total war

The latest reason given for reverting the intro is: "it's false and lacks RS -- there had been many Indian wars before 1860".
This argument is flawed, because the sentence being reverted reads
The practices of total war, developed by Sherman in Georgia, and the mobilization of civilian labor and finances, all foreshadowed the war against the plains Indians, as well as World War I in Europe.
The reverting editor is trying to have it both ways. If 'total war as developed by Sherman didn't foreshadow the plains wars because there had already been total wars before Sherman, surely the same logic would dictate removing 'World War I in Europe' for the same reason, since WWI was even later chronologically. Or do the 'rules' magically bend chronology for some other consideration? On the other hand, Sherman's tactics as a precursor to the Plain Wars ought to be a much sounder assertion even than WWI, seeing as it is the very same General Sherman employing the very same tactics in the Plain Wars. what am I missing? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The practices of (A) total war, developed by Sherman in Georgia, and the (B) mobilization of civilian labor and finances, all foreshadowed the (C) war against the plains Indians, as well as (D) World War I in Europe. We have a statement that is so garbled it's hopeless. Now A = destroying the plantation infrastructure--burning or ruining plantations, barns, RR, bridges, town & cities. A did not happen during C and D. (It did happen with strategic bombing in WWII. During the post-1865 Indian wars the Army not NOT attack the reservations; instead it always was forcing the Indians to return to those reservations. "A" did happen in early Indian wars--eg King Philips 1676, Sullivan in NY in 1779, Seminole wars). B did not happen during C--nothing remotely like it. B did happen during D. So the correct statement would be B foreshadowed D. Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- A = destruction of civilian infrastructure. In the Civil War the southern civilian means of living was destroyed, A. The buffalo were the Amerindian plantations, when buffalo extermination is the ‘critical line of attack’ [S.L.A. Marshall], when men are hunting off the reservation and the village is burned by a cavalry raid, that is A.
- B = Massive mobilization of civilian labor and finance. In the Civil War the civilian application of the American industrial system allowed for 200,000 muskets produced in the last year. [note: American steel production was less than each of the three largest Europeans.] That is B. During the Indian Wars, massive industrial trusts were built on supplier contracts for the railroad building, in lumber, mining, steel – greater than the Civil War. The building of five railroad trunk lines into the plains, resulting in a U.S. steel production greater than Britain, Germany and France combined, and the financing to support it, see Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, that is B.
- C = Total War of mobilized finance and industry for civilian destruction.
(1) A [Civil War civilian destruction] + B [Civil War finance-industry] = C [Civil War total war].
(2) A [Plains War civilian destruction] + B [Plains War finance-industry] = C [Plains War total war]
(3) Therefore, C [Civil War total war] foreshadowed C [Plains War total war], and not WWI as written. I hope that is not so muddled. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Your explanation makes better sense, Rjensen's is quite convoluted and uses a false premise to reach the conclusion that "During the post-1865 Indian wars the Army not NOT attack the reservations". Where are you getting this from? Do you have a source for that assertion? But I see now that the article on American Indian Wars, such as it is, actually includes this curious statement: "In American history books, the Indian Wars have often been treated as a relatively minor part of the military history of the United States and were long treated from the point of view of European Americans." That phenomenon sounds like a definition of Systemic Bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Of course really there was a CYCLE of destruction-industry-destruction-finance-destruction-industry-destruction = TOTAL WAR, but all logical constructs are necessarily abstracts away from evocative historical narrative.
- But for a COPYEDIT, I'm not even ready for a draft here. Yes, the "European Americans" statement accurately describes a shortcoming in that field of historiography. The 'Amerindian Trans-Mississippi' subsection proposal -- that I make below -- would be OVERLY long for this article in its entirety,--
- But what it does is establish the frame of reference I have for making any contribution here, and perhaps a sourced narrative based on it COULD be included in 'American Indian Wars' as an "Extension of the American Civil War" section there --
- I just haven't thought it through enough to post a draft copyedit here ... or there ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
there was no "total war" against Indians after 1865--and no RS have been provided to support that curious notion. The US policy was to keep all Indians on reservations and to force them back if they left. It was not to systematically kill any villages or tribes. The reservations were never attacked (they were subsidized). Rjensen (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I worked in S.L.A. Marshall pretty good earlier in the discussion, on Sherman's extermination of the buffalo being the "main line" of attack. But the reference can be more rigorous, I'll grant you. I promise we can come back to this when I have more ammunition.
- The Reservation Indians understood there to be a sort of social contract. They would leave the buffalo hunting grounds for USG land sales (no new taxes ;). In return they were to be clothed and fed in agreed-upon amounts. When corrupt suttlers cheated the government and the Amerindians, some determined to preserve their children by leaving the reservation. The strategem failed, as there were increasingly fewer buffalo to hunt, Army pursuit was more unrelenting, and on return there was still no food or clothing on the reservation accumulating in their absence, though Congress continued to fund the agreed upon amounts -- a development on which hangs yet another tale ...
- And thanks for the encouragement and contribution below on 'Trans-Mississippi'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You read the bromide, now read the truth at Battle of Washita River. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
General Sherman did speculate about killing the buffalo but he and the army never did any of that. It was civilian hunters (including Indians) who did all the hunting. It was never national policy. Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you not read Battle of Washita River? They followed basically the same policy they had used in wartime since 1610: look for where the village is, and ransack it and the food supplies around the village (crops, herds). You said this stopped occurring in 1865, but clearly it continued throughout the Plains Wars - would you like more examples? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
yes-- the policy used at Washita was 200+ years old and had nothing to do with the Civil War. Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you get as far as the section on "The role of Indian noncombatants in Custer's strategy"? Please read that entire section which is referenced, and then reread the sentence that was reverted: The practices of total war, developed by Sherman in Georgia, and the mobilization of civilian labor and finances, all foreshadowed the war against the plains Indians, as well as World War I in Europe. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction sentence -- nuanced & comprehensive?

- This subject is nuanced and difficult. Rjensen correctly pointed out in an edit rationale, -- total wars against indians go back to 1600s -- Pequot, King Philip, et alia --. He reminds us of the cultural clash between the Amerindian warfare and the European.
- You may remember the term Indian summer, that is -- the warming period in New England that follows the first hard "killing" frost. Thanksgiving falls in that season, because among Amerindians, raiding was principally to steal, not to kill, and with the frost, families, clans and tribes stopped everything else to prepare to survive the winter. The English settler family could relax in security, reliably safe until the spring.
- Among Algonquin, a man who would be elected for werowance-warrior chief -- NOT the sachem-government chief -- could be eligible ONLY by making 3-5 raids for wives or animals and returning without -- a -- single -- friendly casualty, sort of like a Navy SEAL, brave, crafty and strong. From the Amerindian perspective, the Europeans, with war traditions developed in the Thirty Years' War -- Europeans were barbaric in a culture of "total war" to the Amerindians. [It should be said that on their part, the Europeans had cultural objections to Amerindians torturing captives, enslaving kidnapped women and children, stealing settler farm-stock, so inflicting winter starvation on the settler family, etc.]
- Notably in the Pequot War, English attacked villages during winter with the aim of total destruction of property and annihilation of populations. It was culture shock and awe unseen before among Amerindians, not having been exposed to Protestant and Catholic Germans or that cultural heritage of warfare, previously.
- In my view, the point of connecting the Civil War and the Plains Indian Wars [yes, I know, a politically incorrect term] the point of connecting the Civil War, Plains Indian Wars, WW-I and WW-II relates to the scale and industrialization and finance and destruction unseen heretofore. The "total war" aspect of violent war on civilian populations is incidental in the Civil War, substantial in the Plains Indians Wars, technology accelerates in WWI and the new-found violence is applied with unimaginable enormity to civilian populations at the Dresden and Tokyo fire-bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic-bombings.
- I just don't see how to concisely convey all that in the ACW introduction, that's the problem as I see it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to mention most of that for this article (maybe link counting coup), and anyway it is vague to ignore specifics like the native tribes that did indeed fight wars of annihilation. Really it doesn't look like the natives were strangers to this, nor were they previously strangers to making peace agreements between two nations. But what most tribes considered barbarous was for any nation to break its word on such an agreement, or be considered to have spoken with a forked tongue. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the wampum-belt narrative of a treaty was like an agreement "set down in stone" as the Euros say.
-- - Sorry, I have writer's block - here at the moment -- on the subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amerindians in the Civil War -- subsection

Proposed Trans-Mississippi section Amerindians subsection in the American Civil War

- The five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma provided regiments both blue and grey from every tribe. It should note events in Minnesota and Colorado and Plains Indians as separate considerations.
How about a link to Colorado War which ran concurrently? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- good. we can keep the ACW section short using links to "main articles" like Colorado War and Sand Creek Massacre and bring in Calloway's "Revolution in Indian Country", the point that First Nations suffered at the hands first and foremost of the states, finding their allies in the U.S. government at Congress.
- In general outline, first paragraph opens with Confederate government opening in Montgomery, recall of U.S. troops from the frontier to defend Washington, Tribal impulse to secede from the U.S. in a time of secession from the U.S. -- Second paragraph lims the Confederate negotiations with each of the Five Civilized Tribes, two given the option of CSA statehood, with option to include the other three. Tribal delegates sent to C.S. Congress and U.S. Congress. -- Third paragraph relate events to statehood of Kansas as a free state, Congress abolishing slavery in Oklahoma Territory, and Texas referendum ratifying secessionist convention. [I am not yet sure of the chronology here] Then summarize the councils in each tribe enumerating the regiments for North and South provided from those Amerindian populations. Then trace failed efforts to take Amerindian cotton through the blockade, Confederate inability to arm the tribes.
- Fourth paragraph chronicles Trans-Mississippi developments, warriors of the Tribal regiments are participants in -- even essential to -- 'Union' and 'Confederate' military developments as scouts, and cavalry raiders, as combat infantry and in garrison duty -- for both sides. The account should begin with Union mobilization of troops Trans-Mississippi, Colorado War, Sand Creek Massacre. Note the inability of Confederates to protect Indian Territory from Plains Indians attacks as promised. Note the inability of Union arms in the Trans-Mississippi west to subdue Confederate Comanche-like raids including regiments of the Oklahoma Tribes. An entire Union Infantry division is required to clear Missouri. -- In the end, Union holds Indian Territory, Missouri, Iowa and Kansas, and it begins laying track for the Transcontinental Railroad at Omaha, Nebraska Territory. Confederates block Union efforts both to push south out of Indian Territory, opens trade with bordering Mexican states, and it protects Texas from an attack west up the Red River. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
yes but there should be much more emphasis on Indian Territory (Oklahoma) & mention of Navajo war & Sioux war. Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Crisis

Alan - I've restored this section; here's why:

Your attempt to clarify the presentation with numbers "1-2-3-4" a bit remedial; the material is not so complex as to require it, and links to related topics are provided.

It's a bit risky to "piggy-back" on existing citations, unless you've read them; otherwise, it's just editorializing.

I find some of the edits baffling:

“Northern free soil interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave soil (admission of Iowa (1846), and Wisconsin (1848), preserved the federal balance, but California (1850) was then admitted as a free state….” You’ve add some details here that are tangential to the very schematic approach this brief overview provides. Why?

“The first conservative view argued for a pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff, by a return to the balance of 1820… “ The sources I provided don’t support this, so who does? Are you just writing from a general knowledge of the subject? Please provide your sources. In addition, this refers to the political situation, not to the doctrine, which is what the section is describing.

This was the “Missouri Compromise” view… Where is the source that defines this “view”?

“But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case (1857), which denied blacks any constitutional rights, a competing view came to the fore…” Are you certain that this is what compelled Lincoln and the Republicans to take up their doctrine, or was it the K-N Act?

“Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections...” Even Lincoln attempted to appeal to “all sections”, not just Douglas.

If there is a particular portion of the restored article you find unclear or misleading, let's discuss it. 36hourblock (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not my organization. The dates and information, I was clarifying was based on organization and information, that was already there. So, you're largely addressing the wrong editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
@ 36hourblock good to have your input, see the 7-day old #'Territorial crisis' copyedit over ten-day old expressed concerns about the length of the section.
    • 26 Nov. @ Talk. 'Territorial crisis' one of three articles discussed as being too lengthy #Delisting article GA rating
    • 30 Nov. @ Article edit, Note: WP header style. -- please see Talk for proposed text copyedit.‬
    • 30 Nov. @ Talk. opened section: 'Territorial crisis', provided side-by-side comparison of (a) article text and (b) copyedit changes. iterations.
    • 3 Dec. @ Article edit by TVH, Note: copyedit for conciseness per 3-day notice here and Talk 'Territorial crisis copyedit‬)
    • 6 Dec. @ Article. undiscussed revert by 36hourblock.
    • 7 Dec. @ TVH Talk. 36hourblock reports WP block for him on ACW Talk. @ Article. 36hourblock copyedits. TVH misreads post at View History, opens revert subsection at Talk.
    • 8 Dec. @Talk. TVH collaborates box.6.a with 36hourblock. @Talk. TVH collaborates box.2.b, 5.b and 6.b per 36hourblock critique. @ Talk 36hourblock discusses revert.
    • 9 Dec. @ Talk. TVH opens subsections for each box incorporating 36hourblock earlier critiques at each.
- Date stamp for bots. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why a new section from 36hourblock Alanscottwalker without reference to previous collaborative effort here?
Main problem with the recent undiscussed revert is that the previous language did not make a balanced, neutral presentation of the four doctrines -- which the draft here at Talk addressed.
Secondary problem was WP:PUFFERY for Calhoun extends 'territorial crisis' section larger than a one-frame browser as discussed concerning three sections being too lengthy at #Delisting article GA rating . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Double image restored to replace violation of WP:ACCESS with re-introduction of two unbalanced portraits strewn left and right over section text. Replacement images are more nearly alike in proportions and tone to communicate evenhanded treatment of their doctrine, which will also be restored after some amending to the last draft incorporating 36hourblock contributions -- like dropping enumeration, etc.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Advocates arguing is redundant as talkers talking. In the context of the paragraph, and in the structure of the sentence, there is no POSSIBLE misunderstanding that the advocates North and South are speaking on the same side of the question in support of one another. There is no need for extraneous verbiage reiterating the distinction that those of North and South argued versus collaborated -- But collaborate is like what we all want to do here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

section scope

- Let’s discuss it, if there is a particular portion of the ten-day old talk section “that you find unclear or misleading”, rather than blindly blanking in the article whole paragraphs of draft text displayed for ten days without exception here at Talk.
- This encyclopedic section is for general readers. It does not admit to proprietary claims on a “very systematic approach overview” to the EXCLUSION of “the political situation”. The title cannot be “Territorial Crisis Doctrine - a systematic approach”. That notion should get its own forked specialty article, and I would like to collaborate in it.
- Lest I be unclear or misleading, I am also a fan of intellectual history, and I would like to see it flourish in its proper context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Five paragraphs - side-by-side

- The comparable texts are below. 36hourblock may have taken ownership of the previous language, so
- As the discussion goes forward, I invite him to edit the “old-gold” boxes below to amending them as he sees fit, simply noting 3hb at the period end in the box of his new copyedit.
- I intend to be responsive to the critique of 36hourblock and others, so will respond in kind in the “new-blue” column, initialing my changes from today with tvh.
- This is to date stamp if it is needed for the bots. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
draft-box commentary
- I hope this can give us a clearer picture of what one another intends in collaborative work going forward.
  • The first thing to note in my treatment of the four doctrines is that they are approximately the same length.
  • The second thing I tried to do was to systematically in a parallel fashion for each doctrine, explicate each idea -- being faithful to Arthur Bestor's 1964 analysis of four major ideologies -- which mid 19th century Americans adopted to explain how they believed the federal republic should address slavery going forward.
  • The third thing for article context was to note -- expressions of each doctrine -- by the personalities, parties, candidacies and political developments at the end of each paragraph. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
36hourblock has somehow found himself WP - blocked from posting in this section per his post on my Talk. I cannot explain how that can be [aside.itweekthecode.ihatethecode.ittc.ihtc]. But I have faithfully represented him as 36hb. 7.12.2012 in the latest update in the text-draft-box . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Somehow 36hourblock has miskeyed his cut and paste. He removed Bestor analysis from Article without discussion, keeping Calhoun WP:PUFFERY then misattributing the post's vandalism as per my TVH request. I reverted the misrepresentation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What portion of the "Bestor analysis" did I remove? Actually, I returned to the source material and corrected it, citing Bestor rather than Holt. Do you posess a copy of the essay under question? - The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis If you are going to base your edits of his essay, you best be famililar his arguments.

VA has declined to respond to the collaborative questions and comments I offered at the top of this the Territorial Crisis section. Instead, sh/e has challenged me to "collaborate", making a series of obtuse and insinuating ultimatums, and erecting a comparative format that stultifies that editing process. Kindly respond carefully to my criticisms to your major rewrite of the Territorial Crisis. First things first.

If you persist in evading this process, we can move to third party dispute resolution. 36hourblock (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

- Thank you for your reasonable reply. I’m glad to see we might yet talk. I have no idea how I misread that. See the sections below, which I divide off with subtitles so all the arguments do not run together allowing for others to come into the discussion in some sort of coherent fashion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"The first of these ..." Box.2

Previously, 36hourblock. “The first conservative view argued for a pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff, by a return to the balance of 1820… “ The sources I provided don’t support this, so who does? Are you just writing from a general knowledge of the subject? Please provide your sources. In addition, this refers to the political situation, not to the doctrine, which is what the section is describing. -36hb.

- Concur to revise, not agree to analysis. 36hourblock critique dinged me for “cliff” which is commonly used by historians describing the secession crisis of this period, including those discussing Bestor such as Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson in their 2008 article, | Constitutional Crisis viewed December 4, 2012. twice used “cliff” as a constitutional crisis, “proverbial cliff” p.7, “marching over a cliff” p. 29. They describe Type One, Type Two and Type Three constitutional crises, and refer the the Secessionist Crisis of the 1850s, including our ‘Territorial crisis” -- with its open warfare characterized as a breakdown of constitutional order -- as Type Three. Further context to our topic is found in their analysis on p. 9, 23, 31-32.
- Nevertheless, the last 90 days of press coverage of the 'fiscal cliff' has made the expression so trite, that when I reread it after 36hourblock, I could not keep a straight face.
Figurative language, nonetheless, should be avoided, even if the source indulges in using it. We are not advocates for a given source, merely the editors who convey the material. "Cliff" is figurative language, whether "commonly used" or not.
Type One, Type Two..." These technical terms are best reserved for conditions related to diabetes, and other medical conditions.
- [Box.2.b] Lead sentence: The first conservative view argued for avoiding secessionist crisis by a return to the balance of 1820.
- The section is titled "Territorial Crisis" in an encyclopedia for a general reader, not "The doctrines of the territorial crisis". I relish intellectual history and think that this the perfect place to give it a "take away" prominence that it lacks in many general narratives. In addition to Bestor (1964) We might also squeeze in something from Balkin and Levinson (2008) yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Previously, 36hourblock. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view… Where is the source that defines this “view”? -36hb.

- Agreed. the general reader might need the assistance of a link, This was the “Missouri Compromise” view.
- Note -- previous text with which we both concur, a rework of Bestor, the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise) -- WITHOUT a source defining the 'historical precedents of ... the Missouri Compromise' -- a requirement which you now lade on my contribution. I answer your requirement with an inline wikilink. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

[unsigned snippets slid between my words -- moved from their previous location.]

1. "...balance of 1820" lacks precision. Better to stick with "precedents", as I have done. [signed - ???]
2. Even when the reader links to Missouri Compromise they will not find "the view", but the terms of a compromise, that's all. [signed - ???]
3. No need to "define" the precedents - they've already been stated and linked to the Wikipedia articles that explain them. [signed - ???]

- In hopes of some sort of collegial interaction in the free and open exchange of ideas, I remain, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

- I dropped the “cliff” image though when 36hourblock challenged me to find historians who used it in connection with secession, I provided a link to Balkin and Levinson (2008). My next draft dropped “cliff” in a spirit of collaboration. It could help draw in the general reader, or we could leave it out.
1) A compromise is by definition, precisely, a balance. The first conservative view argued for avoiding secessionist crisis by a return to the balance of 1820. Your “precedents” is not used here. Click on [view] to see the passage under discussion. The point of the boxes is that we can talk apples-to-apples, rather than swinging blindly at one another’s assumptions, in a clear way that can be followed by others.
2) Agreed. The link goes in the sentence third paragraph, Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution. Thank you, again.
3) Agreed. No need to define the precedents in section paragraph #3 lead into the doctrines, -- nor now where you make the objection in paragraph #4 of the first doctrine. Missouri Compromise is not even mentioned in the Doctrine #1.para.4 as you have written it. We are agreed about explicating Missouri Compromise, but you seem to oppose me without grounds consistent with your writing in the paragraph immediately preceding. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"The second doctrine ... " Box.3

Previously, 36hourblock. “But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case (1857), which denied blacks any constitutional rights, a competing view came to the fore…” Are you certain that this is what compelled Lincoln and the Republicans to take up their doctrine, or was it the K-N Act? -36hb.

- There is a continuum of widening political base. For the defunct Whig party of Henry Clay, K-N was important to pick up the Free Soil party folks. The Dred Scott Case gave additional traction with the Anti-Masons and No-Nothings -- because Kansas-Nebraska was "out there", but Dred Scott was NIMBY time. Slavery might be okay in the South or even Kansas -- but -- not-in-my-back-yard -- Dred Scott meant slave-property could be used on the farm next door.
- This is also related to developments in literary life nationally. In the 1850s the best seller in the South was Scott's "Ivanhoe". In the North it was "Uncle Tom's Cabin". So the proverbial mindset of the Northern population was undergoing a sea-change. It's not just about factories -- my apologies to Drs. Mr. and Mrs. Beard -- both South and North are still 85% farmers or living on family farms in 1860.
- Recall the process to broaden support for abolition in Gallagher's "The Union war", a majority for U.S. emancipation grew 1860-1866 based on several arguments. The impulse was begun by a) moral imperative by Abolitionists. It was enlarged to b) fulfill the ideals of the American republic. Then c) gain necessary manpower to suppress the rebellion (laborers, growers, pioneers, teamsters, railroad repair, soldiers in garrison and combat), d) punish the aristocratic and financial basis of the rebellion by ending its wealth. It only by adding these last that supermajorities could be obtained in House, Senate and in the state legislatures. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This is all very interesting... 36hourblock (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is the rationale for my conforming to 36hourblock critique, moving away from my first proposed edit -- collaborating.
- Regrets, I am new, and an INTJ, I go from general to specific. The draft you see above is the third. Someone at Third.opinion said to drop the chronology of revisions? Or did I misunderstand.
- Note, box.3.b.draft.3 Bestor analysis is now put in lead sentence -- Dred Scott dropped to last exemplar -- to be dropped for conciseness -?- nooo. it's more important than K-N Act --but to be dropped maybe for collaboration's sake. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Of the two doctrines ... " Box.4

- Old-Gold paragraph of political aspects are incorporated into each appropriate Bestor doctrine in New-Blue draft.
- Each of the four doctrines now have a brief explication with related people, documents or events with links at the end of each doctrine's paragraph.
- This gives an even-handed approach to each doctrine, and integrates ideological elements of intellectual history with contributions from biographical and political historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thus far, TVH has failed to demonstrate that the existing article lacks "an even-handed approach". On the contrary...

36hourblock (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

- Doctrines are not written up in a parallel way among the four paragraphs. The paragraphs are not of similar length, paragraphs of each doctrine do not all represent examples of persons, documents or events in the same way.
- Look at line count, apart from the pictures. -- I see 36hb is a collaborator -- thank you for assenting to the double image, I owe you some support in return --
- On my browser D.1= 2 lines, D.2 = 3.5 lines, D.3 = 3.5 lines, D.4 = 8 lines. 36hb proposes 1.0 = 1.7 = 1.7 = 2.5 in even-handed treatment. Only one who is biased towards D.4 imagines there is equal treatment here. It may be editors will find a consensus that 1 ≠ 2.5. We shall see.
- As a matter of substance, each doctrine should be illustrated by persons, documents and events -- in their respective paragraph -- to provide "an even handed approach". The draft as it is written fails in the attempt at both length and scope.
- The references in this box4.a should be distributed into their respective doctrine-paragraphs, so that each Doctrines paragraph IS even handed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Douglas proclaimed the ..." Box.5

Previously 36hourblock. “Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections...” Even Lincoln attempted to appeal to “all sections”, not just Douglas. - 36hb.

- Agreed. Use Bestor analysis for transitional first sentence, distinguishing first two constitutional solutions as opposed to second two extra-constitutional.
- Box.5.b first sentence: Some looked for a democratic solution to transcend the constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
"Some looked..." is always a weak opening for assertions of this kind. Be specific. 36hourblock (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.2. Democratic impulse is strong in westerly political traditions, early abolishing debtor's prison, ending white whipping post, expanding universal white male suffrage -- Jacksonian Democracy -- Douglas saw Jackson as his personal hero ...
New draft.2 following 36hourblock critique.2. Old Jackson Democrats looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"The forth in this ..." Box.6

- New version proposes Even-handed treatment of each doctrine as described by Bestor in a systematic way, including principally the explication of the ideology. Then examples of the people, documents, or events showing manifestations of each.
- Drop Calhoun puff, who -- never the less for our omission -- shall forever be enshrined in the wold history of parliamentarians, orators and philosophers, one of the United States Senate's Great Triumvirate of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, shining forth as one of the truly Great Americans for all time. No fooling.
- We can all admire Calhoun as a Great American. I use him to explain that American politicians are to serve the people. In the New Nation period, Calhoun is the nationalist, Webster the states-righter. In the Antebellum period, Webster is the nationalist, Calhoun is the states-righter. Political principles in America are to serve the American people, not the other way around. Webster and Calhoun were elected by the people living in their respective states over two great epochs of American history. And the nation was well served in both periods to have the contributions of each man in his respective role serving the people of the United States.
- At 'Territorial Crisis' in the runup to the Civil War, he is dead already since 1850. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

[The following text was disoriented out of sequence as WP convention requires of Talk sections. I will collegially help by placing it in chronological order, a habit of mind cultivated by historians and fair-minded people everywhere. This rule of posting in order is sometimes misunderstood by those who would hide behind another's words, or by those who are new and untried like myself.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)]

These comment lack all seriousness, undermining the claims to "collaboration:. Where in wiki Puff is the existing text in violation? Provide the exact sentence you object to and the passage in WP it violates.
If TVH has anything to offer on the reputation of Calhoun, he must limit his comments to source material.
For example, "Calhoun's political philosophy is hopelessly inconsistent" (p. 25-26), and "a mass of contradictions" (p. 27). "It would be closer to the truth to call the author of the Disquisition one of the more confused political philosophers in the American tradition." (p. 41-42) *Freehling, William W. "Spoilsmen and Interests in the Thought and Career of John C. Calhoun," Journal of American History 52 (1965): 25–42. in JSTOR
That's the proper way to comment on the subject; I decline to "collaborate" with editors who fail to do so. No fooling. 36hourblock (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A special request: Will TVH kindly repost his fascinating story about his pet dogs, and how they refuse to enter a room in his home where Confederate wounded bled during the Civil War? Inquiring minds want to discuss this spooky and macabre tale of horror. 36hourblock (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- 36hourblock collaboratively removed his previous puff at my suggestion on 7 Dec, now claims he never did me any such courtesy. This makes it hard to collaborate, but I will try. This article, the American Civil War, is about secession, a bloody business. I have seen your Texas governor laughing about secession, explaining you are simply pursuing your sand-blasted right to carve another OPEC country out of my country for yourselves, stripping Americans of an ability to be energy independent. You presume to be able to do this because you cannot see both sides. It is difficult to collaborate with someone who denies the history of all sides. But I suppose I can try.
- As for Webster and Calhoun they were both great men. Both were inconsistent in ideology, literally flip-flopping one another.(For Calhoun see Freehling, “Spoilsmen” 1965; for Webster, see Peterson, “Triumvirate” 1988). Those who would rule by ideology find this trait insufferable in both, but both were faithful to their respective people, a virtue in democracy. It is true that both were bailed out of personal bankruptcy by political friends, and so in a way, lost their intellectual independence (For Calhoun see Freehling, “Spoilsmen” 1965; for Webster see Peterson, “Triumvirate” 1988). Truth in scholarship cannot be found in quoting bad for one or or good for the other. It is important to study all with a sympathetic eye so as to be comprehending of people and times unlike our own, in their strengths and in their weaknesses. Apart from scholarship, we personally admire them for their strengths, we are saddened at their weakness and personal loss.
- Following the Peninsula Campaign, a Virginia medical doctor in Williamsburg Va treated wounded Confederate and Union soldiers in his home -- "both sides". That even-handed action under duress is admirable courage but it resulted in social ostracism; the family moved to Norfolk. Some now can only see help for only one side, some then demanded it. Omission twists the past for a purpose such as dehumanizing one side or the other. Good and bad were both true simultaneously on both sides -- but such a larger comprehensive truth may be hard to imagine. Omitting the Union soldiers aided in the family home would put us in danger of one-sided intellectual dishonesty were it to persist in someone's scholarship.
- In scholarship, collaboration requires an empathetic feeling for one's fellows and a commitment to work with others. Even when I find someone reluctant, I can try to collaborate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"Goodbye, Mr. Bond..." 36hourblock (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Box.6 - Notes

- Nesting multiple linked references. is used wherever possible, expanding Wikipedia as an online platform capable of sending the reader to other reading of interest. The focus of an inline footnote is not exclusively on the article sourcing. There is an additional attention to reader experience. Sources link online to expand their horizon on the subject. Each reader drills down in the subject by surfing out onto the internet -- using WP provided reliable sources.
- Alternate wikicode does three things. (a) Six notes to become three in the [box.6.b.1] and [box.6.b.2 versions shown. Instead of an inline note at the end of every sentence, all notes on the same topic in a paragraph can be more concisely shown at one inline note number -- an advantage lost in the alternative. (b) It avoids clutter at the inline citations where editors champion more than one source for the same statement. (c) Editors can relate alternative sources and detail, even make note of scholars in the field who do not pass the WP test for preponderance of the literature.
- This can reduce edit wars. It could allow contributions from editors who are otherwise roughly handled and shut out ONLY because the perspective of their source cannot be tacked onto the bottom of an article narrative section in a sort of annotated bibliographical listing. Instead, such contributors can be graciously welcomed in wiki-love with an expanded footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_15&oldid=1075753269"