Talk:American Civil War/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Para #4 Consensus for 'course of the war'

Mock up: Para #4 Course of the War

Here's the latest draft for mock up: "During 1861–1862 in the Western Theater, the Union made significant permanent gains in the Mississippi River Valley along its great rivers and captured New Orleans by sea. In the Eastern Theater, Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862 repelled Lee’s invasion of the North at Maryland, and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation substantially increasing Union manpower from freed slaves. In 1863, the Union Blockade of Confederate-held port cities became effective, and Vicksburg fell, giving Union control of the entire Mississippi River to cut off Texas cattle. Federals turned back Lee’s second invasion at Gettysburg. The year 1864 saw Atlanta fall and Sherman’s March to the Sea. Capturing Charleston SC cut off the Gulf States from Richmond. In Spring 1865 Petersburg and Richmond fell, and the Confederate armies fleeing south in Virginia and retreating north in North Carolina surrendered with a Union parole to go home in peace.

• The Intro paragraph on the course of the war should include the consensus topics, be shorter (150 words), and include a mix of events and strategic context to engage readers to pursue the following sections here at American Civil War and elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC); Note added. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does exist for Intro paragraph #4 in both the existing text and proprosed revision.

They include these key elements, with the revision more concisely written by 40 words. The concise revision does NOT CaptainEek: "Entirely rewrote the lead, upsetting consensus wording and topics..." as noted at his undiscussed revert.

The conforming consensus includes:

(a) Western Theater including TX,

(b) Eastern Theater including WV,

(c) Emancipation Proclamation & manpower,

(d) the Union Blockade, ports & New Orleans,

(e) the Mississippi River campaign & Vicksburg, Valley Riverboats and Army maneuver,

(f) Lee's incursions at Antietam and Gettysburg; Union repelling them,

(g) Sherman's March to the Sea, Richmond-Petersburg isolation,

(h) Surrender of Lee's Army of Virginia.

The revision omits none of these existing key elements. Instead, it conforms to the consensus of previously workshopped "Course-of-the-War" summary. This could have been readily explained here in the #Fourth new Intro paragraph Talk-section provided, without any need for an un-discussed revert prior to disrupting the Article page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

- - It works as is, we do not need to much detail in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian First, reverts don't need to be discussed, its literally in the name of WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it got reverted, so far no one has agreed with it. Second, consensus is more than just about topics, its about wording. I have provided extensive reasoning for why I don't like the various lead changes. I agree that there is consensus, for the current version, not your version. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes you said a revision 40-words shorter than the existing AND sharing all the existing elements was "bloated".

I collegially asked you to please underline the passages in the revised test that were "bloated" here at Talk in the green text provided.

You have not yet responded over a couple of days. You can't be making up specious reasons for a revert without any substance or logic in a fit of wp:OWN: I do not believe that is so, so I just need to give you a chance to explain yourself in wp:GOOD FAITH, which I am very willing to do here.

Oh, and you could help me out with the grammar errors that you alluded to, I missed them. It happens from time to time. No problem, your corrections are welcome, they are just "friendly amendments". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I already told you that my concern of bloat was for the lead in general, and that I did not agree with you cutting down this paragraph in exchange to make the rest of the lead longer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have made another presumptive assertion without any evidence. The subject of the discussion was Intro Paragraph #4 on the course of the war, but you just made that up to attack my revision without warrant or reason. Now, for another time, you rhetorically purport to be critical of "bloat" without any instance of it, there is no specific passage indicated.

- I do believe my writing can be improved, but it is hard to make it more concise if you say "bloating" or "lengthy" passages in there --- but you repeatedly cannot find any instance when given the wp:good faith opportunity to do so, to help me out with revising my writing. Fifty years ago I went through basic military training, I get what you are doing, you want me to be persistent, resourceful, and self-reliant, to overcome artificial obstacles you place in my path to contribute here, so that I can prepare for the real thing.

- I enjoy thinking through things, just as a general proposition. But now you are dealing with a 73-year old with some life-experience. My good CaptainEek, could you perhaps, be less "Sergeant Instructor" here at Talk and while reverting me, and more Wikipedia Collegial? Help me out. Show me where I need to rewrite a passage rather than summarily dismiss my contribution. If there is no good reason to disallow my contribution, accept it without a whiff of wp:ownership.

- To return to Para #4, your second stated objection was that the revision left something out, yet I have showed the consensus milestones, you added no others --- and none are left out from the previous well-workshopped consensus; I adopt the consensus milestones in the revision. However, the Revision uses a more concise delivery of major developments using well-known regions and strategic evolution with the agreed-upon-milestones, abandoning only the numbing list of Generals and Battles and lengthy enumeration of Generals and Battles -- familiar only to the devoted Civil War hobbyist, which we both are.

- By your reiterating a variation of the unsubstantiated "bloat" critique, I take it you have no further substantive objection to my Revision. A wall of text enumerating our favorite Generals out of strategic context strips the enumerated listing of any compelling interest for the visitor to read on into the article, or to investigate others at WP that make the Wikipedia experience so rich -- but we can encourage them if we just give them a chance to get through the longest, driest paragraph in the Introduction, as it is now written. wp:Other stuff published elsewhere is not an answer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Defense of existing Intro para#4 text

Alright, I'll give some more specific criticism here with input on the various battles that have been fought over wording. I am pointing out two key wordings from the current version that have been fought over and reached consensus:

• The last sentence, which currently ends with ...setting in motion the end of the war. Wording secured as part of the end of the war RfC.
• The emancipation proclamation explainer, declaring all slaves in states in rebellion to be free, which made ending slavery a war goal, which has gone through various permutations to get to this stable version.

Those probably aren't the only ones, but they are the recent ones I remember. Otherwise, I again apologize about my misplaced bloat mention. Again, that objection was to the lead in general getting longer, while this key paragraph got shorter. I'll finish with my main reason to keep the paragraph the way that it is: the current version reads better. I think the prose is much more engaging, and much closer to the FA level than your suggested alternative. WikiProse is so often boring, and much work has gone into making this lead engaging to read. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"setting in motion the end of the war"

First, at the last RfC --- given the context of that discussion then, I would have joined you in an attempt to bring the extended Editors' exchange to a close with the summary adopted: ...setting in motion the end of the war. It served its Editorial consensus purpose to allow Talk page discussions to move forward to other concerns. I AGREE to that purpose, as far as it goes.

Now, I propose the next step forward, to summarize the HOW of "the-end-of-the-war", but NOT as merely an Editorial substitute for an extended list of controversial end-date-skirmishes. The Revision will substitute the amorphous "setting in motion the end of" open hostilities by uniformed regulars, to a summary phrase iterating the stages uniting the Union. It is an "exceptional" way the U.S. had used before to treat a defeated mass rebellion. For an extended discussion, see Jay Wink 2006 April 1865: The Month That Saved America.

Following George Washington's example at the Whiskey Rebellion, the Government issued a blanket "universal" pardon to all participating in the Rebellion. That restored their U.S. citizenship, excepting only Congressional restrictions on their rights to hold office among señor Confederate officers. Federal or State office-holding would require them to again swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which many had failed to do in the "the-late-unpleasantness" -- the genteel Southern expression for the recently previous event(s) among our fellow citizens.

Existing: The Confederates abandoned Richmond, and on April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant following the Battle of Appomattox Court House, setting in motion the end of the war.

- Revision text with a reference to Johnston and a summary explanation of the HOW armed conflict ended at the American Civil War, cited at the National Archives "Surrenders, paroles, and amnesty for many Confederate combatants would take place...":

Revision: In Spring 1865 Petersburg and Richmond fell, and the Confederate armies fleeing south in Virginia and retreating north in North Carolina surrendered with a Union parole to go home in peace.

This is now the twice-amended revision under Editors review since the RfC, with only four (4) more words -- total post-RfC revisions still 20 words shorter -- it adds Johnston's surrender to Lee's, removes the amorphous "leading to", drops the Editor-controversial April 9 date (Ed: fewer dates are Intro-better), and the Revision NOW adds an explicit description of the HOW peace was restored. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and CaptainEek: While we can appreciate the consensus version in paragraph four, we must remember that this doesn't mean that we must get an act of congress, per group ownership, anytime other editors want to add various points. An RfC is usually called for when someone wants to make major changes, but I don't see the few points of clarity that TVH wants to add as anything that calls for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Well I still don't think this version of this sentence is better: it removes the specifics. It doesn't mention the generals, it doesn't mention the date. And it ignores the hard work of the end of the war RfC. But if you believe TVH has the superior version then I will concede this change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to get into some contest about whose version is "superior" and have the utmost respect for well thought out consensus -- just wanted to mention that a few points added to the consensus version might do well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I rather think mentioning "Appomattox" like mentioning "Sumter" is useful summary, but I would drop "setting in motion the end of the war" altogether from the end of that paragraph, and let the next paragraph deal with the follow month(s)/ending issues. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Works for me, implemented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, don't want to revert something that was discussed, but the few words, "setting in motion the end of the war." is actually, imo, a good point of context. It's certainly understood by history buffs, and of course scholars, that Appomattox ended the war, but I think it's safe to assume that young students and such don't quite know or appreciate the resultant aftermath, yet, which is why they come to Wikipedia, first, to get the low-down. Don't see any issue with mentioning "set in motion". It's good prose, and of course a fact. I would re-include that definitive point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Restored, I do like it as a transition, and as a useful explainer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Organization issue

Is there a particular reason why the Atlanta campaign is discussed under the heading "Conquest of Virginia"? It seems quite odd to me to discuss 1861-1863 by theater (although the Trans-Mississippi is lumped into one section that doesn't even mention the Camden Expedition or Price's Raid), but then switch to roughly chronological for 1864-1865 (sans Trans-Mississippi)? The organization of the chronology of the war seems a bit disjointed at least to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the chronology is disjointed, but I've yet to tackle that part...it seemed like a big task so was one of the last things I was gonna get to. I have no attachment to the current arrangement and would be happy with anything that makes more sense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would best to approach it chronologically and then somewhat subdivided by area. I think that would be preferable for presenting when the various theaters overlapped with each other - for instance how the fall of New Orleans in the lower seaboard affected the actions in the Tennessee region. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Describing Reconstruction

@Maurice Magnus The partially successful descriptor has been used to describe Reconstruction in the lead for some time. I don't see why we can't use it, we have the benefit of hindsight and history, and I think it is useful to describe to the reader whether this attempt to "bind up the nation's wounds" (as Lincoln so sagely put it) worked or not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek I don't know why I didn't get an email about your comment, but I did get an alert. Even if we used "partially successful," Reconstruction wasn't partially successful at the time that the nation entered it. If we do make reference to its degree of success in the introduction, then I think that we should note that it became a failure after federal troops were withdrawn in 1877.Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I guess I don't get the logic of why we have to describe its success at its outset. Most ventures are successful to begin with, its only after time that their actual success becomes known. Nor do I see why we'd need to mention the end of Reconstruction. I think its enough to mention that it started, and that it was overall a mixed success. The country was reunited, the Southern states were reincorporated, but only limited rights were granted to the freed slaves. That's a partial success, which also means its a partial failure. No need to dive into the details. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have to describe its degree of success at its outset or mention the end of Reconstruction. I agree that it's enough to mention that it started, but I disagree that we should mention that it was overall a mixed success. In the end, it was a failure. Black people in the South could not vote and were terrorized, causing millions to migrate north. But the more important point is that this is an article on the American Civil War, and Reconstruction came after the Civil War. Therefore, we should not even mention it beyond the sentence we have now: "The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in an attempt to rebuild the country, bring the former Confederate states back into the union, and grant civil rights to freed slaves." That sentence says in effect that, after the Civil War came Reconstruction, and if you want to know about that, click on Reconstruction era. I'd leave it just as it is. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Historical record versus nostalgic fantasy

As y'all know, now that you have sourced access here at Talk to information not contaminated by specious “Lost Cause misdirection” or a commercial “false moral equivalence” for book sales among nostalgic fantasists,

(a) states cannot lawfully leave a democratic republic without following its Constitutional procedures because "the one people" of the Declaration are sovereign, and NEITHER a "divine monarch", NOR any legal (abstract) political fiction called a "state";

It is the People in each nation who are sovereign in a democratic-republic,

- NOT rebellion which never exceeded a 30% minority of the free white males among the One People of the United States of America, acknowledge at the Ratification of the US Constitution, and by a majority of the People’s elected representatives at every state admission to the Union.

- NOR -- for the Wikipedia international readers who have no interest in either the Lost Cause fiction, or book sales among the Sons of the Confederacy -- the foreign invaders imposing unconstitutional rule by force of arms over nearly 20% of the national population at the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Military occupation of cities and town, closing Ukrainian Orthodox Churches recognized by the Cosmopolitan Patriarch of Constantinople, and forcing all schooling to be done in Russian rather than the national Ukrainian language, is all done in violation of the Ukrainian, “European”, democratic-republican Constitution.

-NOR is Russian deportation of 3 millions of Loyal Ukrainian Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking population to Russia while taking away their Ukrainian passports, and not issuing them Russian passports,

- NOR is a Russian-printed unconstitutional "cession referendum" administered by armed soldiers uniformed in foreign uniform, going house to house, who witness the open (not secret) ballot collected at the home of residents in states - a procedure in violation of the Ukrainian democratic-republic's Constitution and condemned in international law, the sitting European Union, and the United Nations as I understand it.

(b) States in the Union with Rebels disrupting US elections from Fall 1861-Spring 1885 were not "returned to the Union" in any way, there was NO Congressional Act Re-admitting them because those same states in the Union never left.

- U.S. Congressional state delegations beginning 1866 were seated as qualified citizens in each state meeting qualifications by Acts of Congress voted to accept the US Constitution as amended over the time period Rebel force of arms prevented voters in US Federal elections numbering at least half of those in the 1860 presidential election for Congress and the Presidency from November 1862 to November 1864.

- For now, I will leave it to you to correct the glaring wp:ERROR found in the phrase, “bring the former Confederate states back into the union”; remove this and other errata found and identified. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A person who steals from you does not legally own it, but the police still return it to you if they recover it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thank you for understanding the need to correct the Neo-Confederate wp:ERRORs laced throughout this article. "A [Rebel] who steals [territory and population] from [the USG's "One People"] does not legally own it, but the [Sovereign People resident there] still return it to you if they recover it."

1. The Sovereign People* in Southern states occupied by Confederate armies 1861-1865 had their elections for the Congress forcibly denied by Secessionist.

2. Shortly after liberation from Rebel occupation, those loyal to the Constitution seated their state delegations to the U.S. in Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, ... at first in Rebel-controlled areas as individuals by requesting amnesty by taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Government as Robert E. Lee did,

3. and then by accepting the Federal blanket amnesty of all those who had participated in or supported the Great Rebellion. The Confederate generation mid-1800s, then loyally voted in Federal elections, ran for state and federal office, and they all swore (or Quaker-affirmed) the U.S. Oath of Allegiance as executive, legislative or judicial officials of both state and federal government as required in the U.S. Constitution (Article VI). See Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar of Mississippi, for example.

- * "The police" in a democratic-republic are the lawful officers of constitutional government who hold a monopoly of armed force, and they are held responsible to the Sovereign People for their use of force in the community to the authority and direction of elected officials. "The police" are NOT self-appointed tribal militias on the Afghanistan model:

(a) 1861 Secessionist militias without officers appointed by the constitutionally elected Governor (Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, et alia),

(b) urban street gangs extorting shopkeepers on "their turf", or

(c) foreign drug cartels unlawfully stripping communities of their generational wealth and their posterity by murder

-- in the American Secessionist case, 600,000 of mostly young lives were lost in the Secessionist's vain attempt to extend a "state's right to slavery" in the Western Hemisphere into the 20th century -- even after the Christian Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople had condemned it here, and previously supported the end of serfdom in the Russian Empire proclaimed in 1856 and emancipated in March 1861.

- At the Virginia Secessionist Convention in Richmond, Unionists warned their slaveholding neighbors that slavery in Virginia could be preserved amidst worldwide commerce only under the protection of the U.S. Constitution as it was, and only as long as it artificially protected slavery here. Secessionists with their gerrymandered Convention districts allowed a majority of delegates to out-vote them, while they represented a minority of free white men in Virginia enfranchised to vote at the time.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

VACANT seats versus SECEDED states

What do RS say about it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources based on primary documents conform to the summary found in Chapter 11, p. 100 of Origins and Development of Congress (free download PDF) published by the Congressional Quarterly, Inc., "The Civil War all but eliminated the South from national politics and representation in Congress for eight years. Most of the 66 House seats held by the 11 secessionist states in 1860 remained vacant from 1861 to 1869."

- Agenda-pushing narratives have NO primary sources of the USG to show Acts of Congress allowing state secession, nor are there any to show Acts of Congress re-admitting states to the Union. They have ONLY Jefferson Davis memoirs such as Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (free online borrowing at Internet Archives) on which to stand and re-echo, and those self-justifying memoirs have insufficient reliability for use here by the international reader or for any serious student of the period consulting this Wikipedia article, regardless of

(a) any Lost Cause interpretations pressed into service for adoption as Texas K-12 schoolbooks, or

(b) commercially marketed books adapted to pump sales to the Atlanta Chapter of the Sons of the Confederacy, and their nephews and nieces.

- See also Kevin Martis 1988, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress 1789-1989. The secessionist-controlled states are not “lost” or expunged from the Union, the SEATS representing the “One People” of the United States (Declaration) in each Congressional delegation are designated "VACANT" in contemporaneous sources, 1861-1868.

If you do find an "Act of State Expulsion", or an "Act of State Re-admission" at the mid-1800s Great Rebellion in the United States, please do site either one of them for me. But I believe there are NONE to be found.

- Individual Members of Congress aiding the Rebel cause to overthrow the U.S. Constitutional order were expelled from their respective SEATS in the House or Senate. But their States were not removed from the Union, the SEATS were noted in the Journals of the U.S. Congress as VACANT.

- So say ALL reliable sources with supporting primary documents, as opposed to any convenient shorthand references meant for U.S. domestic consumption to avoid "refighting the Civil War" in corporate boardrooms or faculty lounges, which I do support in those contexts apart from a Wikipedia article of history intended for an international general reader or a student for instance, in a Ukraine bomb shelter under guided missile attack as he reads about the American Civil War here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And, to be sure, whenever you would like, I can be more accommodating in my phraseology during our discussions, speaking for myself. I will be happy to do so if I can contribute to a wider discussion among interested colleagues, our fellow Wikipedian editors here present.

Full disclosure, I was partially raised by genteel Southrons, and we can all discuss "the late unpleasantness" of the mid-1800s in more detached terms if you would like -- for the sake of a more refined sociability among those of "the enslaving persuasion" visiting with us here at ACW Talk. "Southern hospitality" is a renowned virtue among my people, welcoming of all who enter.

I assure y'all that I can conduct myself as such with a more elevated deportment, whenever called upon to do so, just as long as the circumstances here permit me to maintain the dignity and honor that manhood requires of me, as we once said down here.

However, I have never been treated in that archaic 19th century, Romantic Era, genteel manner here at Wikipedia by anyone, ever.

@Slatersteven: How about you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what any of the above has to do with it, do they say "did not leave"? You are the one arguing for a change, you are the one who needs to back it up with sources that explicitly support it. 10:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

1. User:Slatersteven is obligated to read my post immediately above his last to see and acknowledge, the reliable scholarly sources published by the Congressional Quarterly, the Congressional Record, and the Biographical Directory of the United States. To Talk-post pretend no such sources have now been published to back up the identified article revisions required to replace the pin-pointed wp:ERRORs in this article, is to fail in good editing practice promoted by the Wikipedia Foundation for this article.

2. Did the sources say states "did not leave"? - No. Because the states in the U.S. cannot leave the Union, there is no need to posit that, "They did not leave."

- States in a democratic-republic of consolidated Union (Patrick Henry) CANNOT unilaterally leave just as the Founders clearly, outspokenly understood, whether Federalists or Anti-Federalists in each and every of the 13 ratification conventions, widely reported and read (and read aloud) contemporaneously throughout the United States --- UNLIKE those previous "states" which had been bound in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles confederation of sovereign states.

- The U.S. Constitution of 1789 ushered in a new consolidated-federal regime in the United States of America, overthrowing the purely federal one before it. That was contemporaneously, formally acknowledged unanimously in the last session of the Articles Congress as it closed, "end of business".

- Many of those voting in the last Articles Congress session then immediately swore before their God and the U.S. Congress to uphold the U.S. Constitution in their elective offices taken up in the new regime. That is a fact of American history which is commonly understood by all of wp:good faith here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not according to RS which say they were readmitted, this is your OR of primary documents. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And if you are replying to something, can you place it under what you are replying to and format it correctly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1. The RS is provided in this thread, under the Slatersteven challenge directly to me |here, "What do RS say about it?". Directly under it is my reply, Origins and Development of Congress (free download PDF) published by the Congressional Quarterly, Inc., "The Civil War all but eliminated the South from national politics and representation in Congress for eight years. Most of the 66 House seats held by the 11 secessionist states in 1860 remained VACANT from 1861 to 1869.". (Ed: emphasis added). That is to say, the SEATS were vacant, but the STATES were NOT seceded.

2. Please do now show your suggested format to correct for this and other posts directly below in this thread, any at all, that you may deem "improper format", or please do now abandon your second assault of snarky personal attacks on me about wiki-procedure that together amount to online bullying, posted here and on my editor-page most recently, "I think you need to read WP:BLUDGEON." Slatersteven (talk) 10:10 am, 13 October 2022", and "you are the only one arguing for your edit, it is now time to drop it as you do not have consensus." Slatersteven (talk) 10:50 am, 13 October 2022. My reply there at my Talk. listed the dialog of your direct asks of me, and my 1:1 replies.

3. User:Slatersteven suggested that an encyclopedia used the phrase "Readmitted into the union" "Reamited into the union" https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/150| here. But the article's reference to the Reconstruction Acts does not support the statement, because they say here, where "no legal State governments ... now exists in the rebel States…", upon eligible resident voters meeting the Convention and Constitutional requirements to make the enacted military districts “inoperative”, --- then "said state shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress. Nothing about STATES reentering only U.S. REPS reseated.

- HOWEVER, Wikipedia policy directs that in the place of ERROR in an encyclopedia entry, Editors are encouraged for the sake of Article accuracy to use a citation from an academic scholar publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

In this Talk thread, I provided the North Carolina Law Review |article by Professor Gabriel Chin. The Introduction begins, "As part of the process of readmitting the former Confederate states to representation in Congress…", and that is the phraseology that this Wikipedia ACW article should use.

4. Do now abandon the irresponsible accusation that RS provided here at Talk by me are my wp:OR,which is again, another personal attack on me about wiki-procedure, "this is your OR of primary documents.", implying that I am alone responsible for independently inserting information into a Wiki-Article which are wp:reliable sources from Robert A. Diamond, ed. published by The Congressional Quarterly, Kenneth C. Martis at The MacMillan Publishing Company, and the Congressional Biographical Dictionary published by the Government Printing Office, any and all of which are not my OR as you accuse me here at Talk in this thread.

- Please do me and the other Editors reading this page, the courtesy of replying here in this thread to each of the four (4) elements in my post, immediately below in this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, do any of these say (using these words) "but the STATES were NOT seceded"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered above, you are creating an unnecessary wall of words. Did the sources say states 'did not leave'? - No. Because the states in the U.S. cannot leave the Union, there is no need to posit that, 'They did not leave.'

This is an article of American history in American English at Wikipedia, the articles are to agree with one another. The settled law of the United States on this topic is found discussed on Wikipedia at Texas v. White. This article should conform to that Wikipedia article and the scholarly reliable source published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, |article by Professor Gabriel Chin. The phrase ACW adopts in this context should conform to that quoted above, such as "As part readmitting Congressional representation from the previously Rebel-held states…", as previously sourced in this thread, and left rebutted.

As quoted at Texas v. White, "When [a state] became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation, ...perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. ...[M]ore than a compact, it was the incorporation ...into the political body. And it was final ...as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

- The late 1860-1861 attempt at a "Secession Amendment" failed in Congress, the Rebellion failed to become an accomplished Revolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Readmitted into the Union" versus "U.S. Representatives readmitted"

"Reamited into the union" https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-civil-war-108886 https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/150 https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cons/features/0206_01/slide2.html

"rejoin the United States" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Reconstruction-Acts

So all those sources use the term "rejoin" or "readmit". That is enough to tell me we are correct. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, let’s look into it. I take the sourced information at any link from an encyclopedia with contributions by scholars, including this one from the Library of Virginia as usually useful information. However, regardless of sourcing, WP articles are not REQUIRED to admit wp:ERROR from any source.

- The Title of the article does indeed read, “Letter Announcing Virginia’s Readmission to the United States, 1870”. The first introductory paragraph under “Context” makes reference to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868. Let’s look at the text of those acts, to see whether "These Acts described the necessary requirements for a state to rejoin the Union." which has now been identified as wp:ERROR, without any Talk-space rebuttal to date.

Further:

1. THE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS do not support the encyclopedic-written characterization in the popular phrase "states rejoin the union", an wp:ERROR.--- At OwlEyes.org "Text of the First Reconstruction Act", The Act of 1867 text begins, --- where "no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States…", upon eligible resident voters meeting the Convention and Constitutional requirements to make the enacted military districts “inoperative”, --- then "said state shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law".

Note: There is NO mention of "readmitting states to the Union", or "states rejoining the Union" to be found in the subject document(s) referred to in the encyclopedic entries or news publications cited by User:Slatersteven above. They are the popular but unfounded bases of the article's identified wp:ERRORs on this subject.

2. SCHOLARSHIP BY EXPERTS is to be chosen by WP Editors over general encyclopedic entries as a matter of Wikipedia Foundation policy. --- At a North Carolina Law Review |article by Professor Gabriel Chin, the Introduction begins, "As part of the process of readmitting the former Confederate states to representation in Congress…", and that is the phraseology that the Wikipedia ACW article should use.

3. To avoid the demonstrated wp:ERROR shown in this and my previous post, which is not discredited to date, AND to conform to expert scholarship in the field cited in this first law journal, the American Civil War article must adopt

- NOT the erroneous "popularly used phrase", identified as "readmitting states to the Union", but rather --- DO USE the correct and scholarly phrase(s), “readmitting former [Rebel, Confederate, illegal] States [governments] to representation in Congress”.

- As shown at the links in this and previous post. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Where were these found to be errors, by who? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

More

"readmission to the Union" [[1]]

" readmitted to the Union" [[2]]

"readmitted to the Union." Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era [Two Volumes] - Page 513 Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing there is no consensus for this, and it is just a wall of text, that appears to be OR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia should maintain a global perspective, and describe events as a global citizen would see them. The idea of 'people's sovereignty' might be held by a large part of the population, and be the philosophical underpinning of the American government, but this does not necessarily make them facts. To a neutral observer, Alabama clearly established its independence in 1860, spent the next few years attempting to defend this independence, and ultimately failed in the attempt. While philosophically it might have remained part of the United States for this period, Wikipedia should describe the facts on the ground, while also mentioning the philosophical and legal debate.

Let me make an analogy. In 1649, King Charles II of England was executed. The following years, England was without a monarch, until, in 1660, his son Charles was restored to the throne. This is the course of events that was experienced by everyone involved in the events of this period. If you believe in the legal philosophy of Divine right of Kings, Charles II became king immediately upon his father's death. This legal idea is important to discuss, but the reality of the situation remains that England did not have a king for the intervening period.

Or, to put it more simply, we are dealing with a difference between de facto and de jure situations.

David12345 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. The period is known as the ''Interregnum'' IOW a gap when there was no king. In ''Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor'' (1830) that Sailor's Snug Harbor was not part of the State of New York when it was occupied by the British. "[I]t was in the possession of the British. The government of the State of New York did not extend to it in point of fact." People residing there were, the decision continues, not residing in the state. Their reasoning is based on English common law, which held that Charles II did not become king of England until he was able to exercise the position. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

So it is correct to say that the Confederate states seceded from the union and were re-admitted. And note too they were not treated as states until they were re-admitted. TFD (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"To a neutral observer, Alabama clearly established its independence in 1860, spent the next few years attempting to defend this independence, and ultimately failed in the attempt." Well I think you mean 1861, but your statement seems a rather contradictory, if it was an "attempt", in fact then it cannot be already be "established", in fact. Moreover, a neutral viewer would see from the beginning Alabama was divided between Unionist and Secessionists, with parts controlled by Unionists throughout. Thus Alabama itself was in an internal civil war throughout the period, and if you take Charles I analogy, it is not the period after he was executed, it is the civil war period before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that Unionists controlled parts of Alabama throughout, just that some of them formed guerilla groups. But even if they did, it would be the same as New York City during the U.S. Revolution, which has also been considered a civil war.

Charles I was recognized as king until his death because he was recognized as such by both royalists and roundheads. Parliament formally abolished the office the same day as his execution. His son was not recognized as king even though the civil war would continue for two more years.

The future Charles II was able to control parts of England until defeated in Worcester. TFD (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Which means that the proper analogy is the civil war period before Charles I execution, not the period after. Parts of Alabama were Unionist throughout, and the formal Union Army was in Alabama by 1862, raising Union troops in Alabama. Even to the extent there was a civil war in New York in the 1770s, it failed to uphold the king's sovereignty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My point was that limiting yourself to the legal situation that obtained after the conflict is a cute rhetorical trick, but doesn't supply a complete picture of the situation. Under the US constitution, unilateral secession is impossible, but secessionists clearly wanted to withdraw themselves from that very consitution, and as a practical matter left the United States until returned by force over the next few years. It is all well and good to describe the legal conclusion that constitutional scholars (and many at the time) came to, but it shouldn't take precedence over the reality of day-to-day events. England was not a monarchy after the death of Charles I, even if this is a logical absurdity under the philosophy of monarchy that returned with the restoration of Charles II. David12345 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are saying that England was a monarchy before the death of Charles I, during the pre-execution civil war. So, to extend the analogy, the secessionist Alabamans never executed the sovereign in law or in fact. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

An analogy doesn't have to extend to all aspects of a comparison to be useful. But in any case, I feel we're retreading ground that has been covered again, and again, and again, on this page. I think there is no consensus to change the way secession, the seceded states' relation to the Federal Government in Washington, and the process of rejoining the Union, are described in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David12345 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The death of the sovereign alone did not end the monarchy, it was the fact that parliament took power. After the Restoration, all laws passed in the Interregnum were considered void, since they saw the rebellion as illegal. But that did not mean the republic never existed. Certainly reliable sources do not treat it as a fiction just because ultimately the monarchy was restored.

As in the English republic, the sovereign of the United States is the people of the United States who exercise sovereignty according the constitution. The CSA rejected this sovereignty and replaced it with the people of the South.

Anyway, can you explain why New York City was deemed not to be part of the State of New York, because the state was not in control of the city, but even though the U.S. no longer exercised control of the Southern states, they remained part of the U.S.?

Incidentally, if the CSA never seceded, the Union's conduct of the Civil War would have been illegal. It effectively treated the CSA as an enemy state and later as occupied states. There is nothing in the U.S. constitution for the federal government to appoint state governors. But it is able to appoint governors of territories. TFD (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Parliament abolished the monarchy at the same time as the execution of the monarch, so parliamentary power and executing the king were one.

The New York case involved issues of citizenship vs subjecthood with regard to a will, and there was a conflict of laws as to when subjecthood or citizenship accrued. People who were subjects of the crown, remained subjects of the crown throughout the revolution, until the crown relinquished sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris (1783). In the American civil war, the U.S. never relinquished sovereignty.

The constitution empowers the federal government to put down insurrection or rebellion and ensure states have republican government under the U.S. constitution, so there was nothing illegal about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the argument, but surely most Americans would say the US asserted its sovereignty when it declared independence in 1776, with the treaty of Paris confirming this reality? Either way, the distinction seems to me to be a rather nit-picky one that should not be overemphasized. David12345 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who asked for discussion of a New York will case. As for what most Americans might say, I doubt they have an opinion (informed or otherwise) on conflict of laws in an 1800's wills case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

While the New York case revolved around the determination of Inglis' nationality and hence his right to inherit property, his nationality was based on whether he was born in New York State or British territory. The Court determined that he was not born in New York State. The conflict of laws is a red herring: under both English and American law Inglis was born a British subject and remained one, never acquiring U.S. nationality. As the decision said, Inglis father "was not, within the reasonable interpretation of this resolution, abiding in the state and owing protection to the laws of the same."

In fact, the U.S. and UK law differ over the date of U.S. independence. Americans of course were already citizens of their respective states and hence of the United States and Britain recognized their loss of subjecthood with the Treaty of Paris. However, it took decades for the courts to determine this.

Generally speaking, reliable sources use 1776 as the date of independence, because that is when the UK lost control of the country, although it retained some footholds, such as New York City, and the states had not international recognition.

While the constitution allows the president "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," Lincoln relied on his war powers to call out the regular armed forces.[3] He wrote, "as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy." Lincoln's war powers allowed him greater authority than in suppressing a rebellion.

TFD (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This has gone about as far as it can to be useful, a wills case from the 1830s seems quite off point to the present article. I only write to remind the talk-page that Lincoln's "war powers" like every president before him and after him are centered in the presidents command of the armed forces of the U.S. which include the regular forces and the militia when they are federalized by the president. Lincoln federalized the militia at the outset and for the duration of the war. President Lincoln acted like President George Washington before him pursuant to the Insurrection Act, a federal law. The Insurrection Act allowed and required the commander-in-chief to use his powers to put down rebellion or insurrection, including employing the regular and militia forces to do so. So, no Lincoln did not just rely on his own authority in this, he relied on law. George Washington did the same with regular forces, as did other presidents before Lincoln. Congress's authority in the matter is found in its constitutional regulatory power with respect to the the regular forces and the federalized militias, which Congress continued in multiple pieces of legislation throughout the civil war. Rebellion, insurrection, and civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive, then or now. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to remember that it is not up to us to determine whether Lincoln was legally in the right in acting as he did. This discussion has bern carried out by qualified historians and legal scholars, and we should describe their ongoing conversation and give it a proper place in the article, without giving undue weight to either side. David12345 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, as I pointed out above Lincoln exceeded his powers as president to suppress an insurrection and instead relied on his "war powers" as commander-in-chief. Lincoln said that in the quote I provided and also his attorney-general and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed in the Prize Cases of 1863. This gave the U.S. government the power to treat Confederates as enemies, with no recourse to the courts, rather than as mere traitors. Foreign nations were also expected to recognize that a state of war existed between two belligerent parties.

David12345 is correct that it is not up to us to determine whether Lincoln acted legally. But we can accept as undisputed fact that a state of war existed and that the claim that Lincoln acted like Washington before him pursuant to the Insurrection Act has no support in reliable sources, with the possible exception of his initial reaction to the attack on Fort Sumpter.

TFD (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The fact which must be acknowledged is it was a civil war. The Prize Cases found that Lincoln did not exceed his powers to suppress the insurrection, and that the rebellion was a civil war, in fact. The court relied on the Insurrection Act to find his actions lawful. Lincoln was fully in his rights to treat the the confederates as enemies and traitors, although he could not treat them as foreigners. The court found the Confederacy's claim to independence was a red herring with regard to Lincoln's lawful authority in putting down the rebellion:

" ... it is not necessary, to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other. Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. . . . The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress [the Insurrection Act] of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States. . . . The President was bound to meet it [the civil war] in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact. It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an "insurrection" by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war . . . . [Emphasis added] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a novel reading of the case. The judges clearly disguished between insurrection and war. War is "between the contending parties, with all the rights of war known to the law of nations." Insurrection is "a personal war against those in rebellion, and with encouragement and support of loyal citizens with a view to their cooperation and aid in suppressing the insurgents" (694). Suppressing an insurrection "is the exercise of a power under the municipal laws of the country and not under the law of nations" (692). IOW it remains a police action, no matter what level of force is required.

The whole point of the case is that if Lincoln had been acting under the Insurrection Act or his powers to suppress insurrection under the constitution, then the blockade of the harbor would have been illegal and the prize ships would have to be returned to their owners.

The Wikipedia article summarizes it well: "By ordering a blockade, Lincoln essentially declared the Confederacy to be belligerents instead of insurrectionists." TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No. You have misstated the case and quoted the losing dissent. The dissent is not the law, the majority decision is. The only time the actual decision uses the word "personal" is noting that under maritime law, "Whether property be liable to capture as "enemies' property" does not in any manner depend on the personal allegiance of the owner." Thus, it did not matter who the owners of the condemned prizes claimed allegiance to. The point of the case, by the way, was whether US admiralty courts could condemn prizes for running the blockade, and the court found under international and domestic law, given the circumstances, US admiralty courts could and did do so lawfully. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The only dispute in the case was whether the president could exercise war powers without Congressional approval. See the Civil War historian James McPherson's lecture Abraham Lincoln's Invention of Presidential War Powers, which explains how Lincoln relied on his war powers as commander in chief rather than his power in suppressing insurrections in his conduct ot the Civil InsurrectionWar. TFD (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

At least we now seem to agree that the salient fact is that it was a civil war. So, we are now expanding beyond the call-up of the militia and the blockade. As the Supreme Court said, he had those powers pursuant to the Insurrection Act ("a civil war always begins by insurrection"). The Act, acknowledging him as commander-and-chief, gave him a duty to employ the militia and the navy in such an emergency.

Congress was out of session at the beginning of the emergency (so basically the court and others saw it ridiculous to contend congress need to speak, anew, at that moment of emergency). At the same time that Lincoln called up the troops, he called congress into session at the earliest possible moment, at which point congress continued legislation in Lincoln's favor (but never declared war, the congress, the president, and the court, saw such a declaration of war as not required or needed in a civil war, and certainly not to set-up the emergency blockade). Which leaves the suspension of habeas corpus (later tested in the Supreme Court not in Lincoln's authority alone but under an Act subsequently passed by congress), but the suspension is a claim of federal government's sovereignty over the whole of the south, as well as the north. The Emancipation Proclamation was never tested in court, but it too was a claim of the federal government's sovereignty, as expressly a measure to put down the rebellion, over the whole of the parts of the country in rebellion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are interpreting the judgment in a novel way. indeed "a civil war always begins by insurrection," but it doesn't remain so. "A civil war," says Vattel, "breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms."

During an insurrection, property can be seized only under a "municipal law."

IOW Lincoln treated the CSA as if it were a separate state at war with the U.S. and International law required other countries to do so.

if you disagree, how do you explain that the ships could be seized as prizes? That would be a clear violation of due process, which is protected under the 5th Amendment. TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

May 26, 1865 end of Civil war? Wrong!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your article clearly states by this sentence the End date of the Civil War is June 23, 1865. " Confederate ground forces continued surrendering past May 26 surrender date until June 23". Common sense would tell you if the war was over as you claim on May 26 ,1865 Nobody else would have any reason to surrender as the war is done on that date. Why it's not done on May 26 is a simple reason of over 20,000 hostile confederates under arms were still active. Also, the USS Alabama was still active still firing hostile cannon fire under a Confederate flag until June 23,1865. You can tell by federal government action exactly when the Civil war was over. The mass discharges of Civil war soldiers started in July of 1865 shortly after the last confederate General surrendered. Any mass discharges in April nope, May nope, June nope, July yes, August yes. Also, the anaconda plan was not lifted until June 23, 1865, when the last Confederate General surrendered a key point because before that date, they were considered hostile Confederate ports. Your May,26 end date is illogical and WRONG! 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Another key point to prove the Civil war was not over on May 26,1865. The last group of drafted Union troops happened on June 1,1865 6 days after you claim the Civil war ended. How could they be drafted for a war you claim no longer existed? Obviously, the Union government still considered the war active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

When did General Grant consider the war over? When he received word of the last confederate general surrendering on June 23, 1865. So, on June 28, 1865, he ordered the Army of the Potomac disbanded as the war was now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Civil War lacks a clean end date. The May 26 date was chosen as the date that the consensus of historians use, but even they point out that the date is for practical purposes only. If you want to find the actual end date of the war...you could choose from over a dozen possible dates, and the reality is that historians don't fully agree. We had a very extensive discussion on the matter at Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_22#RfC:_When_did_the_Civil_War_end? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Key clues for the end of the war. open ports up to free trade without restrictions. That happened on June 23, 1865. The last Confederate General Surrenders his army. That happened on June 23,1865. The lead Union General disbands his army. General Grant disbanded the Army of the Potomac on June 28,1865 5 days after the last Confederate General surrendered and he received news of that fact. Mass discharges of Union forces. That started July 1 ,1865 one week after the last Confederate General surrendered It is obvious and without a doubt the war ended on June 23,1865. But if wiki wants to continue the farce of the May 26,1865 WRONG date for the end of the Civil war go ahead. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if one is a Union commander why disband unless you are sure the war is already well over. At any rate, see Notes 1 and 2, of the article, the focus of historians is not on what the Union was up to, it is the Confederate Army, and that it was basically over (give-or-take) when Kirby Smith surrendered the last Department (at that time all the Confederate armies were surrendered - discharged, if you will -- even with mopping up some violators of the departmental surrenders). And yes, Wikipedia tries to look to and present not what Wikipedia editors believe, but what the consensus of published historians is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kirby Smith did not sign the surrender documents until June 2 so that blows your fake May 26 end date right there. Plenty of Confederate activity in Texas until June 19,1865. Thats where the Juneteenth federal holiday comes from. When major fighting in Texas was over, and the end of Confederate slavery was proclaimed. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk archive @CaptainEek linked to before retreading old ground. David12345 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I did read it. I totally reject it. Instead of people after the fact giving opinions, I take the opinion of the man in the field whose job it is to totally defeat the Confederacy. That person is General Grant. General Grant did not think the war was over until he received the report the last Confederate General surrendered on June 23. He received the report on June 27 and disbanded the Army of the Potomac on June 28. After June 23 the few Confederates still active were not a threat just a nuisance. That why mass discharges of the Union Army Started under the direction of Grant to all commands July 1,1865. And within 90 days over 100,000 union troops were out of the military. Your phony May 26,1865 end date goes in direct opposition to the military opinion of Lt Gen U.S. Grant as to when the war ended. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This has already been covered, Smith's command had already surrendered on May 26th before he got around to doing the pro forma. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

When is a war considered over? in the case of WW2 the Japs surrendered on Aug 15, 1945 but the end of the war is considered Sept 2,1945. Why? That is because the Japs signed the surrender document on that date. So, Kirby Smith signed the document on June 2, 1865 that's when he actually surrendered his command. What he had on May 26, 1845 was a agreement in principle to surrender not a actual surrender. A military man would know the difference. A wiki kid overseer from California would not. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're trying to get your ideas taken seriously, taking shots at Wikipedia editors trying to engage with your concerns is not the way to do it. David12345 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No shot taken just explaining how a military man views things (me) vs the faulty opinion of a Wiki editor who knows nothing about war who reads a book written after the war and thinks that book is gospel. Even though that book was written by a non-military man well after the war. I value General grant and his opinions. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is a reliable source? That would be Lt General U.S. Grant When Lee Surrendered in April of 1865 did Grant disband the army of the Potomac? No he did not because the war was still active in many areas. When did he disband the Army of the Potomac? That happened on June 28 when he felt the war was over. He received the report that the last General of the confederacy surrendered he received the report 4 days after the surrender on June 27. He then issued orders to put the army on peace time footing starting July 1 and then the mass discharges happened. Grant told his troops the war was over by giving them orders to go home. This is when the Commander in Chief of the Union forces said the war is over and i believe him. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Grant, as a participant in the Civil War, is a primary source. Wikipedia Policy heavily favors secondary over primary sources. You may disagree with this, but that's the way it is. Simply insisting that the only relevant opinion is Grant's (or yours) will get you nowhere and is a waste of everyone's time. David12345 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You value grant; so do we. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, however, general Grant's opinion is not the only or even the primary source we use in writing an encyclopedic article. This wouldn't change even if you were general Grant himself, testifying in this thread. David12345 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The wiki change from the ridiculous May 9, 1865, end date you had before the change to the faulty May 26 end date. The only positive thing I can say about the faulty May 26 end date is that it covers the Texas battle that happened after May 9, in Texas at the palmetto ranch. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The May 9 date is not ridiculous. Although it was rejected by the community, it's the only date that has any weight of official government policy behind it.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

May 9 was when the US president wrote in an order the rebellion is virtually ended. No source has been provided of Grant arguing for any date. Pointing to his disband order, gets no one anywhere, because by any logic, it had to end well before that, multiple dates are before Grant's disband order. Moreover, editors here don't take what Grant did and guess or extrapolate from that (see, WP:NOR), we go with what historians write, and it is not surprising historians don't go with Grant's disband order because they are unlikely to accuse Grant of disbanding recklessly or prematurely with no support for that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL ,When the commander in chief of the Union forces U.S. Grant gives the order for the Amry of the Potomac to disband on June 28, 1865 after receiving the report of the last Confederate surrender on June 27 you can damn well bet that he believed the war was over. June 23,1865 is the exact date for the end of the war. He then issued orders for all union troops to go on a peace time status starting July 1,1965. Allowing mass discharges to allow the volunteers to go home. Over 100,000 union troops were then discharged in the next 90 days. On MAy 9 when the president claimed the war is virtually ended must not of sent the memo to the 150,000 confederate troops still under Arms. Even using the MAy 26, date over 20,000 Confederate troops were still active in Texas and west of the Mississippi states. Once the surrender happened on June 23,1965 no active confederate army's existed. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL? So, we are done here. You have shown, this is not a serious discussion. (150,000 paper troops, 20,000 paper troops, even if one were to think such numbers matter with massive confederate desertions happening for months and months, and the endemic confederate inability to feed, cloth, arm and move, almost all just surrendered in May). In the end, it does not and will not matter, what you say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct as a person who has a master's degree in Civil war history. Talking to children who are wiki editors and have no idea what they are talking about its not a serious discussion. A serious discussion needs to have both party's with an equal knowledge of the facts. Instead of California google experts who know nothing talking to someone who has studied the subject for six years. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Come now. If one is paying attention, you are just an IP, or just a screen name, here. Have some sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What date do you suggest (backed up by RS actually saying "this is when the war ended")? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The prime reliable source Lt General U.S. Grant. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battles

I am wondering when working on an article for a battle for the Civil war if only one leader for the Union and one leader for the Confederate States should be listed. I noticed the battle of Gettysburg had only one leader for each side. WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@WalkingRadiance I don't believe there is a convention, I'd use your best judgement. I will say that personally I err on the side of less, rather than more, people in the infobox. Especially for the larger battles, you could listen dozens of leaders, and that just isn't very useful. Having one, or maybe two, leaders on each side is what I prefer but don't take my word as gospel :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Poor Writing Naval Battle//Union Blockade

The Second Paragraph of the Naval Tactics Section reads... "The Civil War occurred during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Many naval innovations emerged during this time, most notably the advent of the ironclad warship. It began when the Confederacy, knowing they had to meet or match the Union's naval superiority, responded to the Union blockade by building or converting more than 130 vessels, including twenty-six ironclads and floating batteries.[183] Only half of these saw active service. Many were equipped with ram bows, creating "ram fever" among Union squadrons wherever they threatened. But in the face of overwhelming Union superiority and the Union's ironclad warships, they were unsuccessful."

The last sentence is very confusing to me, what were they unsuccessful in. I would suggest something like, "These ironclad warships would not be enough to swing the tide at sea for the Confederacy as the Unions naval superiority and own ironclad warships would be enough for them to maintain superiority throughout the war." This sentence is not perfect but it is better. I don't care if this sentence is used or not my main point is the last sense in the paragraph needs to be changed.

In the economic impacts subsection of the Union Blockade section the first paragraphs last sentence reads, "Most historians agree that the blockade was a major factor in ruining the Confederate economy; however, Wise argues that the blockade runners provided just enough of a lifeline to allow Lee to continue fighting for additional months, thanks to fresh supplies of 400,000 rifles, lead, blankets, and boots that the homefront economy could no longer supply."

So Stephen R. Wise has a wikipedia page and should be referenced instead of just saying Wise. I would also rearrange the whole sentence to:

"Most historians agree that the blockade was a major factor in ruining the Confederate economy. Dissenting opinions do exist.Stephen R. Wise for example argues that the blockade runners provided just enough of a lifeline to allow Lee to continue fighting for additional months, thanks to fresh supplies of 400,000 rifles, lead, blankets, and boots that the homefront economy could no longer supply." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyb603 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation, but I'd suggest you should be bold and simply make the changes you think need to be made. I think your suggestions would be an improvement. The artice is only semi-protected so I think you should be able to implement these changes. If someone has serious objection you will be reverted; if someone wants minor changes they can make further edits. I wouldn't link Wise, though, as he is already linked in the biography. David12345 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the linked Stephen R. Wise is the author of the book referred to. The linked person is someone who made a career out of politics in Florida, while google suggests the author of the blockade-running book is an academic from South Carolina. I'm not seeing any evidence their the same person. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The disambiguation page Stephen Wise lists another by that name, but he doesn't seem to be the author either. David12345 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Stephen R. Wise wiki link was an accident. It is not the same person, I meant to remove it from my suggestion. Dannyb603 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Secession process in the US Civil War.svg

@David12345: How would you suggest File:Secession process in the US Civil War.svg be changed to make it appropriate?

The default display is [[File:Secession process in the US Civil War.svg|thumb|Secession process in the US Civil War]] is as a "thumb". We could have it display ~full size:

We have two events on 1861-01-09 (Tennessee voting to stay in the Union and Mississippi seceding) followed by Florida and Alabama seceding the next two days.

If I make the fonts any larger, I have more problems like this. I can stagger those dates so they are legible.

What do you think? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

So there's a number of things that I find confusing about this graph, these are the two main ones:

- Why did you divide it into two panels and also use multiple colors? I'd keep it to one row, to the right of the dates. This would allow you to increase the text significantly without making the entire thing too wide. I'd stick to two colors: blue for eventual Union States and red for eventual Confederate ones.

- Why does the text overlap in several places? (the dates Tennessee voted to stay and Florida, Mississippi, Alabama seceded - the phrase "Texas seceded" and the phrase "Confederacy met: Montgomery, Alabama" (I'd also rephrase this to say Confederacy meets in Montgomery, Alabama. In fact I'd rephrase the entire thing to present tense)

These are just some of my thoughts, hope they can be useful. David12345 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@David12345: Thanks very much for the reply. The two panels are the Confederacy and the Union. I should label them as such.

Blue and gray were the colors chosen by the two sides. A song describes, "Two brothers on their way ... One wore blue and one wore gray. ... Two girls waiting by the railroad track. One wore blue and one wore black. I had a great-great uncle, who died in the Battle of Atlanta and a friend who said, "Good."

Different shades of blue and gray were chosen to indicate the intensity of the commitment of each event to that side in the conflict. Tennessee and Virginia initially voted to stay with the Union -- light blue -- but then switched after Lincoln effectively declared war -- a lighter shade of gray than the Deep South.

The text overlaps, because the dates overlap or nearly so.

I think the plot still needs two sides with the dates in the middle.

I just looked at it on my iPhone, and it looked better than I expected. I will fix the issue with 4 events in three days starting with 1861-01-09, mentioned above. I hope you will find this new version acceptable.

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@David12345: What do you think of the following either as a 'thumb' or occupying the entire width?

Secession process in the US Civil War

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I just replaced the latest version with a minor update, so "Virginia seceded" becomes, "Virginia left Union, seceded". I did that also for Tennessee, which also officially voted to stay in the Union, then seceded after Lincoln called for 75,000 militia to suppress the rebellion. We don't know what would have happened if Lincoln had let the South secede, but the option was clearly being considered, and history likely would have been very different if Lincoln had NOT attempted to suppress the rebellion.

NOTE: As you are reading this, the image above may show either "Virginia seceded" or "Virginia left Union, seceded", depending on a bug in the MediaWiki software. This problem should correct itself in the next 72 hours, if it does what I've seen it do in the past. In the meantime, if you click on "thumb" display of this new version, you will see it.  ::::Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is certainly an improvement. I'm afraid I still don't see the merit in having both two collumns and multiple colors. If you put it up like this, I expect you will have other people removing it again. Apart from that, here are a few of my suggestions:

-The section about the lower south seceding is quite cluttered; you're trying to combine some things by staggering States and dates, but I don't think that works. I'd change it to:

"January 1861: South Carolina, Florida, etc secede. Tennessee votes to remain." It's not always necessary to include individual dates for events: you're trying to present a clear narrative, not a list of dates.

-The dates are not aligned to the middle of the collumn

-I'd avoid mixing terms: either use "seceded" or "remained / voted to remain", so no "left the union" or "voted for Union"

One last comment: interesting though alternate history can be, it's not our task to speculate on what could have been. What's clear is that Lincoln's call for troops is what pushed states like Virginia to seceded when they did, whether or when they would have otherwise is not what this article concerns itself with.David12345 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I am against any variant of this graphic on this page. Perhaps it would be fitting on some subpage, but on the main article about the war it is way too much detail, confusing, and ultimately clogs up space that could be used for other things. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Slavery was only a portion

Slavery was only a portion of the cause. States rights Vs. Central Govt. Southern states were the major industrial and agricultural back bone for the entire country. Central govt wanted to control on entirety the cost and disbursement of all produced goods, while increasing taxation across the board on all suppliers. They were trying to impose taxation on all major supply routes from the southern producers. The Southern states disagreed with all the taxes and levies being attempted against them. The north brought slavery to the table in the middle of 1857 trade negotiations with disgruntled southern states. Northern states continued their propaganda by telling former slaves if they served in the union army for a year they would have papers of emancipation, and despite popular belief, there were some bad southern slave plantations but not near as there were in the north and the worst and most savage of the slave plantation owners were African-Americans. Also on side note of slavery.....it was the Portuguese and spanish charter ships that started the triangle trade route for slavery..not condoning the embarkation or institution of slavery...just TRUTH not partial facts or biased imprinting. Truth: African-Americans were NOT the first or only slaves in this country....started with European indentured servitude, and prisoners. Majority were Irish,Welsh and English. Before spouting the "causes" for the war(s) do your due diligence. Library of Congress, Smithsonian, Cambridge historical library, Oxford history dept. as well as many other places where historical documents are kept...not speculation. 174.251.208.194 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archive. But in essence, modern historiography (see Lost Cause of the Confederacy) does not accept the state rights argument as a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, read the archive as this issue comes up very often. In sum, reliable secondary sources all describe slavery as the main cause of the Civil War. Yes, they acknowledge that there was tension between "states' rights" and the powers of the central government, but by far the most important issue where this tension manifested itself was the slavery issue. As the for the other claims in your comment, they seem to be digressions from the main subject of the article.--MattMauler (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's basically the position of Neo-Confederates, which has no acceptance in mainstream writing, which policy requires to be followed in content. While the tension between the manufacturing/commercial north and the agricultural south and disputes over free trade and the powers of the central government goes back to the beginning of the Republic, the catalyst for the war was the dispute over extension of slavery into the western territories. TFD (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your argument boils down to, at issue was the South's ability and desire to protect and expand slavery economically and politically, through favorable tax policy and other ways. So that means it was about slavery, particularly race based slavery, as the Confederate Vice President said: "The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The real cause of the civil war

The civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights. Slavery was the key issue because the states didn't want the federal government telling them what to do. 2600:387:F:5716:0:0:0:9 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

See the States' rights section for a discussion on point. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And the talk page archive that answers this (many times). Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@CaptMintz22 and GELongstreet: User:CaptMintz22, if you believe there are multiple inaccuracies in this article, you need to find credible sources to cite to support each change you make, and check to make sure that each such change you make seems to be written from a neutral point of view while giving appropriate consideration to all available sources. Your changes did not include any citations: People of good will routinely disagree on many things. Part of the power of Wikipedia is the ethic just described of writing from a neutral point of view citing credible sources. If you can't do that, you can expect others like user:GELongstreet to revert what you wrote.

On this regard, I especially like the section on Articles on contentious issues in the article on Reliability of Wikipedia: Wikipedia works to produce a narrative that is better than what any one person or small group could produce, because people with very different perspectives collaborate to produce something all can more or less live with.

For further discussions of this, see Wikiversity:How can we know? and Wikiversity:Confirmation bias and conflict. Thanks for your attempt to help give every single person on the planet ... free access to the sum of all human knowledge. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI the user has already been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have checked for that, before I wrote the above. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If I see the times correctly he was blocked after your message, so your doing was perfectly alright. Unfortunately this particular disinformation vandalism is rather frequent here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this before. Can we develop some protocol for managing these situations better?

They either truly believe that they are trying to make Wikipedia better or they are paid vandals. In either case, I think they should be encouraged to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources. They may not know the rules, or they sort of know them but ignore them.

By analogy, only yesterday, I got a complaint from the management of the multi-unit building where I live that one of my guests was violating the rule against smoking on the property. I had told him before that I thought the rule was no smoking on the property: He needs to cross the street. This time, I forwarded the official complaint to him. He thanked me and said he wouldn't do it again.

Our frequent vandals have energy. With a little more empathy, we might help the vandals understand and appreciate that everyone thinks they know more than they do, and there is value in engaging in respectful comparison of sources, etc. If we can do that, we can convert vandals to productive Wikimedians ;-)

DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Colored troops in the lead

@DavidMCEddy Leads are summaries of the most important aspects of an article. There are a lot of details about the Civil War. While I find the colored troops important, by no stretch do I think that is lead worthy material. The Colored troops are mentioned exactly once in the body. There are a lot of other details I'd sooner mention, since they are given more discussion in the body. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Accepted. I felt the article needed the information in the sentence you deleted. However, I accept that it doesn't need to be in the lead. I moved to where "Colored troops" were discussed later in the article. The place where I put it could probably use some wordsmithing, but I don't feel I can afford the time to do it. I hope you will accept this as an improvement. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a fine outcome by me. I often have to move things out of leads and into bodies :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Territorial Changes

Besides the Dissolution of the Confederate States of America, Slavery abolished, Beginning of the Reconstruction era and Civil rights granted to freed slaves should be added to the Territorial Changes section. 86.131.245.189 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call those territorial changes. How is the start of a new political era a change in territory? At any rate, those items are discussed in the lead, which is I think appropriate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What about under 'Result' instead of 'Territorial Changes'? It is pretty brief compared to say, the World War II infobox. I know infoboxes are intended to be concise but it seems like at a minimum the abolition of slavery should be mentioned. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok then, the Result section. With bullet points. 86.131.245.189 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, check the Result section on Google. Dissolution of the Confederate States, U.S. territorial integrity preserved, Slavery abolished, Beginning of the Reconstruction era and Passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 86.131.245.189 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger Ya know, looking at WWII, that's a good point. I've added a version of the suggested bullet points. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks! Looks good to me. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Declaration of War

What day did Congress declare war, or did they? 2604:9D80:A100:743D:5DE5:5AFE:2487:EEBA (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

They didn't. The Federal Government never recognized the rebellion (CSA) as an independent nation. A declaration of war would be a tacit recognition of the rebellion as a sovereign nation since a sovereign nation can only declare war on another sovereign nation. 138.234.218.121 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Supreme Court decision Texas v. White (1869)

This court decision specifically address the issue of succession and its legality under the Constitution. To leave it out is wrong. 69.54.142.165 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion. However, the case was filed 1867-02-15, over a year after all hostilities had ceased. It was part of Reconstruction politics and should probably be mentioned in the article on the Reconstruction era. I would encourage anyone interested to add it to that article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

It should read give the South greater representation.

The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery to the territories, which, after they were admitted as states, would give the North greater representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. 75.211.63.133 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

All of which we cover, try reading the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I think the commenter has a point, why would admitting slave states give the North greater representation? It should be give the South greater representation, unless we are both misreading this somehow. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You are both misreading it, we do not say they would be slave states, in fact we say the opposite, that the fear was they would not be slave states. Of course the problem here is that you had "northern" slave states". So if the line needs rewriting it would be to replace Noth and south with Free and Slave. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have not clarified it, as it makes no sense that the south would succeed over too many slave states. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding "free" in "admitted as free states" clarifies it for me, thank you. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

This should be Irwinville, GA not Irwinsville, GA. 157.166.167.132 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you for pointing out that error. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC: When did it end?

Andrew Johnson, the law passed by Congress and the Supreme Court declared August 20, 1866 as the date of the end of the Civil War, while Infobox makes no mention of this date. Since I can't make a major edit without broad consensus, I've created an rfc to fix the problem.

• Option 1: August 20, 1866 should be considered the end of the war instead of May 26, 1865.
• Option 2: This date is good.
  • Option 2A: Write about this in note B.
  • Option 2B: No need to write it in the notes.

Parham wiki (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I choose option 1. Parham wiki (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length, please check the talk page archives. I choose Option 2B and would go even further and say note B should be removed, as the last shot of the Shenandoah isn't particularly notable. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the RfC tag, as there was no RFCBEFORE, and this issue was the subject of an extensive RFC quite recently. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Go with the previous RfC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for the replies, someone closes the discussion Parham wiki (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

With the third sentence in introduction that writes this;

The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories, leading to more slave states, or be prevented from doing so, which was widely believed would place slavery on a course of ultimate extinction.

Please change to this below where the changes is highlighted in bold. Then add in the supporting source. [4]

The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories, leading to more slave states, or to keeping western territories only open to white labor alone, which was widely believed would place slavery on a course of ultimate extinction.

Reason for change;

Because there's a major difference between fighting for black people to have equality and same privileges to whites, and with fighting to merely keep a territory to only employ white labour, and not black slaves. They're not the same. And such nuance must be mentioned if you want a honest fuller retelling of the war. GUPTAkanthan (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. A single sentence from what looks to be a blog, even though its on PBS, is not sufficient to change the lead on this article. That statement needs more context and explanation. I write a lot about the Civil War, and that is not an idea I've heard of before. Certainly, Oregon sought to exclude blacks. But I don't think its accurate to say that the goal was to keep western territories for whites alone. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstood War

Wikipedia is not a forumCaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I fear history may have gotten lost along the way in retelling the US civil war. The north didn't want white people's working jobs to be lost to black slaves. The south who relied more on black slaves, greedily wanted to expand their slave labour into the western territories. The war was not about fighting for the rights of black people. It was in fact primarily over 'the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict'. It was fought fundamentally over slavery but not in the way people think. This article should be more straightforward on the cause of war, instead of repeating a feel good myth that (sarcastic tone); the north fought bitterly because they were so woke and willing to fight to the death to primarily help black lives over white lives. Who believes that? [5] GUPTAkanthan (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC) It wasn't fought over woke policies. Generally speaking there was still racism in the north. However, the north tended to believe in freedom for all when it came to the constitution. The south believed freedom for those who were free and that the constitution didn't apply to enslaved people. If YOU see it as a war against woke and unwoke culture thats your opinion. Many scholars tend to lean towards both "states rights" and their right to choose who was free and who wasn't. Honestly the north wasn't really interested in free BLACK people, they just didn't believe that slavery and the US constitution were able to peacefully coexist The Introvert Next To You (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Reason for Emancipation

Hi @CaptainEek I added those edits in [6] but got reverted by you then you asked me to please discuss it on talk first. I had added them in because I believed readers need to be aware of the basic reason why Lincoln had enacted Emancipation Proclamation. Which to undermine the Southern state's economy, in order to bring them under control. And think it should have at least one mention in the lede when it was not mentioned previously, yet is one of the most important facts behind the war/slavery factor. Seeing that you have edited this article for a long while, I would be receptive to your reasoning here :), but I do think the lead needs to have at least one mention of Lincoln explaining the purpose of why they made Slavery abolition a Union goal. And why I propose to add in a single sentence to lede that states that Lincoln decided to enact the Emancipation Proclamation, for the purpose to bring the seceded states into submission, by taking away their "economic engine" and "labour supply"; slavery. These are true facts with many strong supporting sources but it's no skin off my nose if you think it's unnecessary. [7] [8] [9] GUPTAkanthan (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The basic reason why Lincoln issued (not "enacted") the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with undermining the Southern states' economies. It is true that freeing the slaves would prevent them from supporting the Confederacy by planting crops and perhaps cause some Confederate soldiers to desert and go home. But Lincoln didn't view that as a way to undermine the Southern states' economies. He viewed it as a way to win the war. You won't find anything about undermining the Southern states' economies in the literature. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Errr, as he could not enforce it how woud it free them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As the opening of Emancipation Proclamation states, "As soon as slaves escaped the control of their enslavers, either by fleeing to Union lines or through the advance of federal troops, they were permanently free." Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they had to flee first, it did not in fact set them free until they had escaped. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"through the advance of federal troops" refers to instances when the slave owners fled, leaving slaves behind. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Which means these areas were already in federal hands, and so were not available for Confederate economic gain. This is why we do not do OR. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation states: "Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. One contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation." This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley and the area around Alexandria were covered. Emancipation was immediately enforced as Union soldiers advanced into the Confederacy. Slaves fled their masters and were often assisted by Union soldiers."

The point is that the EP had a greater impact, including immediately, than some people appreciate. But the reference to contrabands doesn't make sense because contrabands, by definition, were already free. Theoretically, they could have been re-enslaved when the war ended and the EP was no longer justified by military necessity. But that would have been unlikely. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Find a source that says this was a reason why they were declared free. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A source that says what was a reason why they were declared free? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

NO a source supporting what the OP wants to add (see wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What's OP? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Origional post. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you mean to undermine the South's economy. I addressed that above: "You won't find anything about undermining the Southern states' economies in the literature." Perhaps you're addressing GUPTAkanthan (talk), but that editor wrote, "it's no skin off my nose if you think it's unnecessary." So I suggest we drop the subject. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we close this as the OP has admitted they have not one source and thus is the wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I in fact already gave a source in my original post, and never admitted that I don't have one[10] As I explained above, I think the lead should include a reason for why Lincoln decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe that Slavery was very important in Southern economy. [11] and I read the Proclamation was intended to encourage slaves in the South to flee over to Union lines, depriving the Confederacy of their labor force and also potentially joining and increasing the Union's army. There are numerous sources that suggest that the emancipation proclamation was for winning 'or' to shorten the war by taking away Southern resources; "slaves"and hence reducing the Confederate strength. [12] And such facts maybe needs to be minimally mentioned at least once in the article's lead. But if both of you above and also CaptainEek are uncomfortable with me adding those edits in, and think it's not needed in the lead. Then message received and I am not going to push this further.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize (however) for saying you admitted no sources, it was the other user. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

GUPTAkanthan: The way you put it now -- the emancipation proclamation was for winning 'or' to shorten the war by taking away Southern resources; "slaves"and hence reducing the Confederate strength -- sounds reasonable, not that I think it needs to be added to the lead, as the brief reference to the EP in the lead seems adequate, and it's not the place to discuss the reasons Lincoln issued the EP. The way you put it in your edit, however, led me to think that you were trying to add a Beardian or Marxist interpretation, and that's why I opposed it. You wrote, "Originally the war started as a struggle to preserve the union, however Abraham Lincoln had believed the best way to bring the seceded states into submission, was to weaken them economically, and as slavery was the 'economic engine' and 'labour supply' that was keeping the economies of the southern states sustained, the struggle had evolved into a dispute over the limitations placed on the slavery industry." Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, so unless this claim takes up significant space it has no place in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus, Thank you for the speedy replies. Seeing you and Slatersteven have both opposed my edits as you explained the lead is already good enough, and that it is not the appropriate place to add such reasoning. Then I guess I got not much choice but to accept such "Consensus" and I guess this means this discussion is now over. But I think I should also tell you that for the record, I was actually referring to Lincoln using the Proclaimation as primarily as a war-time measure to help 'win the war' and to undermine the south for war-time purposes. I definitely wasn't trying to give it a 'Marxist interpretation' at all, but perhaps didn't make myself clear and thorough enough the first time. I apologize for causing misunderstandings.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am just stepping in about the comment that just two people are weighing in on this topic. Regarding adding more content to the introduction about the reason for the war, is it possible that Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War, Origins of the Civil War, or Abraham Lincoln and slavery might be the best place for that?

There is already content in the intro about emancipation becoming a goal in, "The abolition of slavery became a Union war goal when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863..." And there are plenty of places in Wikipedia that discuss what led up to the war, Abraham Lincoln's stated opinions about slavery since the 1830s and intentions regarding emancipation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No sources in the introduction?

Forgive my ignorance, but I am wondering why the introduction includes no sources. I tried searching for a reason in the talk archives but nothing stuck out to me. I am sure there is a reason for this. Ribose carb (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Generaly (per wp:lede) anything in the lede must be in the body, and anything in the body must be cited. So (automatically) anything in the lede has a cite in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Every now and again there's a reason to add something to the lede that isn't in the body, in which case that information should be cited (I think the very rare times I've done that are statistics that are interesting, don't really fit in the body of the article, and fit with the content of the lead). As stated in WP:CITELEAD, there are some situations where there should be a citation in the lead. Based on experience working with other editors, that is generally done for significant awards or claims that might be disputed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No there is not wp:lede is clear, the lede is a summary of the article, there should be nothing in the lede that is not in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven's interpretation of the MOS, and I avoid citations in the lede. However (and ironically), wp:lede has a citation (number 1) in the lede to a sentence that is not discussed in the body. TwoScars (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with Slatersteven. Complaining about something not being cited in the lead is as silly as reviewing a movie based solely on its trailer. Such commenters should just be ignored, as they have proven that their opinions aren't worth hearing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

In the introduction, please remove

On April 14, just five days after Lee's surrender, Lincoln was assassinated.

and add

Lincoln was assassinated and died on April 15, just six days after Lee's surrender.

(In case you don't remember, he was shot in the evening and lingered until morning.) The context is the war's end and the beginning of Reconstruction, for which Lincoln's death is critical partly because he and Johnson had different approaches (cf. Reconstruction era sections "Lincoln's presidential Reconstruction" and "Johnson's presidential Reconstruction"), so the date of his death is more significant than the date of his assassination, as well as being more remembered. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. NOTE: you probably will not be able to; every other article about Lincoln gives the assassination date as the 14th, as that is the date of the shooting which caused his death. Where appropriate it also gives the 15th as the date he died. Xan747 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Xan747, why do you make it sound as if I'm claiming that his assassination happened on the 15th? Of course he was assassinated on the 14th. I'm just suggesting that the assassination date be omitted in favour of providing the date of his death. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't my intent to make it sound that way at all; your comments made that clear. However your suggested edit does make it sound as if he was shot and died on the 15th.

The main Abraham Lincoln article says in the lede sentence that he served as president from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Then in the final paragraph of the top section, On April 14, 1865, just five days after the war's end at Appomattox, he was attending a play at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., with his wife, Mary, when he was fatally shot by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth. The article doesn't mention that he died the next morning until the Assassination section of the article, and even then not until about 3/4ths through.

The lede sentence of the main Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article says:

On April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, was assassinated by well-known stage actor John Wilkes Booth, while attending the play Our American Cousin at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. Shot in the head as he watched the play, Lincoln died the following day at 7:22 am in the Petersen House opposite the theater.

My point is there seems to be a consensus of editors that the 14th is the significant date because that's when he was shot, and the 15th is an afterthought. Thus my asking you to gain consensus for your change before making an edit request. Xan747 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll give my +1 to a change along these lines. We can say something like

"On April 14, just five days after Lee's surrender, Lincoln was fatally shot by booth in the theater and died the next morning." DarmaniLink (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that better, but the word assassination is important. Patterned after the main assassination article I quoted above, how about this: Lincoln was assassinated five days after Lee's surrender on April 14th, dying the following morning. Xan747 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No. "Assassinated" means killed. President Garfield was shot in July and died in September. The first sentence of James A. Garfield states, "James Abram Garfield (November 19, 1831 – September 19, 1881) was the 20th president of the United States, serving from March 1881 until his assassination in September 1881. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I have no problem with saying that Lincoln was assassinated on April 14 and died on April 15, because his death followed directly from the shooting. If he'd died at 11:59 p.m. or at 12:00 a.m., it shouldn't cause us to change the day of his assassination. In Garfield's case, his death not only occurred two months after his shooting, but apparently was caused by his doctors. Still, should the Garfield article state that he was assassinated on the day he died?

Turning back to American Civil War, the lede states, "On April 14, just five days after Lee's surrender, Lincoln was assassinated" and does not mention when he died. Shouldn't it? I hesitate to edit it because I've come to this discussion late. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine as is. Far too often, leads try to provide every bit of detail and context, so as to never possibly make a general statement. But that's silly. Sure, it might be more correct to note the day he got shot and the day he died. But it doesn't matter on this article. It's about DUE coverage. And what matters is that he done got assassinated. It is shorter, more concise, and reads better to say he was assassinated, rather than specify shooting and dieing. Is that perfect? No. In fact, as a matter of writing it'd be better if we used active voice and specified that John Wilkes Booth assassinated him. But again, it doesn't matter here. This isn't the article on his assassination, it's the article on the war writ large, and while his assassination is key to the war, it's one part of many. Leads can only be so long, so we have to be choosy. Our readers can go to the assassination article, so helpfully linked, to learn more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Good points. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor punctuation edit reccomended in the introductory paragraph for "Causes of secession"

In his second inaugural address, Lincoln said that (REMOVE 'that')(ADD COLON)

(ADD elipses) slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

so that it reads: In his second inaugural address, Lincoln said:

... slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

H3r0t0dus0fHalicarnassus (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@H3r0t0dus0fHalicarnassus A decent suggestion, and I have incorporated it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

D H3r0t0dus0fHalicarnassus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@H3r0t0dus0fHalicarnassus and CaptainEek

An ellipsis is never needed at the beginning of a quotation. Every quotation is preceded by something; even the first sentence in a book or article is preceded by the title. Furthermore, starting a quotation with a lower-case letter indicates that it is not the first word of a sentence. My preference would be "slaves constituted," but another option would be "[S]laves constituted." Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I'm fine with starting it lowercase. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the ellipsis. I admit that some people do start quotations with ellipses; my view is not universal. But it's correct. :-) Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've consulted the grammar book and you are correct (in that you are not wrong, which is the best kind of correct!) it looks like there's been a bit of an issue with the indent for that particular quote now, though H3r0t0dus0fHalicarnassus (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

This is a lie as there was already talks and both parties agreeing

The civil war was started because of land and taxes. Slavery wasnt even a part of it at first as the north and whitehouse itself had slaves. It was used 2 years after the war had already started as a military tactic. 2603:8080:4701:3C18:BD0D:D72:6F1C:C6B2 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Odd then that RS (And even the stated declarations of secession) disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. No reliable sources provided. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

America civil war

America 202.142.122.53 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure what you want us to say, care to elaborate? Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

US Civil War

It was the US or United States Civil War, not the "American" Civil War. There is no country called America. Calling someone an American can be anyone from the Western hemisphere of the world not just the people of the United States, Mexicans, Canadians, even Cubans are all Americans. 2600:8807:888C:4F00:E033:31EF:B7DB:C46A (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of Americans: “Americans are the citizens and nationals of the United States of America”. Title is perfectly fine. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree.

I understand the confusion about "American". There are some sources like Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary that state that the noun American refers to people from North or South America here.

1. an American Indian of North America or South America

2. a native or inhabitant of North America or South America

3. a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen

In practice, though, Canadians don't refer to themselves as Americans. They commonly use "Canadian". The same is true of Mexicans, they commonly refer to themselves as Mexicans.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost all books call it the ACW. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation issue

Citation 364, under the Reconstruction section of the article, isn't properly cited. It doesn't follow proper format or even use a link. Can someone fix it? I'm currently writing an essay and don't have the time to do this myself. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

Please insert a "|" in the following citation template:

{{Cite book |last= Hunt |first = Jeffrey Wm |title = The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch |date=2015 |publisher =University of Texas Press|location= Austinisbn=978-0-292-73461-6}}

so it looks like:

{{Cite book |last= Hunt |first = Jeffrey Wm |title = The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch |date=2015 |publisher =University of Texas Press|location= Austin|isbn=978-0-292-73461-6}}

and renders like:

• Hunt, Jeffrey Wm (2015). The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-73461-6.

Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Refering to the "Union" as the United States

The Civil war was fought between the United States of America and the Confederacy, and referring to the United States as the "North" is untruthful. There were southern states that remained loyal to the United States.

The North didn't win, The United States did.

So why refer to the Untied States as the North? and not the United States? Tildin (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war in the United States between the Union ("the North") and the Confederacy ("the South"), which had been formed by states that had seceded from the Union.

I don't understand what the bolded part means. Does the "which" refer to the civil war, or to the Union and the Confederacy? Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

MAybe because you are not reading it as "the Confederacy ("the South"), which had been formed by states that had seceded from the Union". Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. That means the sentence is even more confusing than I first thought. The "which" can be interpreted in three different ways: the civil war, the Union and the Confederacy, or just the Confederacy. This should really be clarified. Popcornfud (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No it means is what it says, the confederacy was formed by secessionist states. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Two of those interpretations are nonsensical. I agree with Slatersteven, I see no problem with the sentence. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Today, I ate one sausage and one egg, which had been purchased from a farmer."

What was purchased from a farmer?

1) The sausage

2) The egg

3) Both

4) Don't know

Answers please! Popcornfud (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

From Antecedent (grammar) § Uncertain antecedents:

In some cases, the wording could have an uncertain antecedent, where the antecedent of a pronoun is not clear because two or more prior nouns or phrases could match the count, gender, or logic as a prior reference.

Your sentence has an uncertain antecedent. In the sentence in question, is it logical that a civil war was formed by states that had seceded from the Union? Is it logical that the Union was formed by states that had seceded from the Union? That leaves only one logical interpretation. A better analogy would be "Today, I ate one sausage and one egg, which had a double yolk." However, if you can rephrase it without making it excessively wordy, I wouldn't have a problem with that. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, your better analogy is 100% correct. See my comment below. Thanks for grasping what I was trying to say, it is appreciated. Popcornfud (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I hold my hands up — that's kind of a sneaky question, because of course logically the "which" has to refer to the Confederacy because the Union can't be formed of states seceded from the Union.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that grammatically speaking the "which" could apply to both or either, and you have to make the reader work backwards through the sentence to grasp it. It's quite a tangled lead sentence, and I tripped up on it on my first reading. There ought to be a way to simplify it without a loss of meaning or information. Popcornfud (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Change American to Canadian for nationality as he was born in Canada and only moved to the US later in life. 2600:1012:A106:639C:C45D:9BEC:53E2:BE39 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I think you're on the wrong article. Cannolis (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

War Department

please change ((War Department)) to ((United States Department of War|War Department)) 2601:540:CA80:5FB0:6851:3234:7019:508E (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Border States"

The legend for the map identifies yellow states as "Border Southern states that permitted slavery but did not secede (both KY and MO had dual competing Confederate and Unionist governments)". But it highlights Delaware as yellow. So far as I can tell, Delaware isn't a "Border Southern" state, only bordering Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Should Delaware be re-colored, or should the meaning of yellow be re-labeled? 71.121.227.187 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Delaware was a border state. Even though it had fewer slaves than other border states, it also had a white supremacist governor.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The border states are generally considered to be those states that either remained in the Union (Maryland & Delaware) and Missouri and Kentucky who had abortive secession attempts but never had a Confederate government that exercised more than theoretical control over the state. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"only bordering Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey" -- Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were in the North, so Delaware was certainly a Border Southern state (see also, Southern United States). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)