Talk:Confederate States Congress

Legislation

This was added on 2/8/08:

The Confederate Congress also passed legislation calling for the execution of any African American taken as a prisoner of war with white officers suffering the same fate if they were captured in command of black troops [1]. This act outraged many in the United States Congress and the Union Army promptly responded that if any United States soldiers were executed without cause, an equal number of Confederate soliders would likewise be put to death. The Confederacy backed down on this official proclamation although summary and "unoffical" killings still took place. The act to execute Negro troops was protrayed in the 1989 motion picture Glory.

Several problems I see with this. First, the source for this is a proclamation by Jefferson Davis, not a bill passed by the Confederate Congress. I'm no expert on the Confederate government, but it seems like this would be more like a modern executive order, which is separate from acts of Congress. Second, the source doesn't say what is claimed. Nowhere does it say that black troops are to be executed, but that the troops are to be treated as POWs, unless they're slaves, in which case they're turned over to the states. Maybe the laws of those states provided for death for such slaves, but there's no source for that.

But besides the fact that this isn't a legislative act, it seems POV. Maybe on a page about the treatment of blacks during the Civil War, or some such topic, but I don't see the need to talk about this one proclamation here and no other laws, and comes across as "look at just how bad the South was". There might be a place on Wikipedia for this proclamation, but it's not in this article, at least not without more. PaulGS (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be moved or modified, but just cutting it because one doesnt like what it has to say isn't the way to go here. Yet another source for this is "Blue Eyed Child of Fortune, the Civil War Letters of Robert Gould Shaw". It this book, he directly states "The Confederate Congress has issued a proclamation..." and then goes on to desribe the exact measures where his soldiers (as well as the Colonel himself) would be executed if captured. I've also seen this mentioned in several other Civil War textbooks as well as a brief mention in the PBS speical "Reconstruction: The Second Civil War". This is further noteworthy due to its apperance in the film "Glory". It is not "Point of View" since it is a direct factual statement and nowhere does anyone say the South was bad or evil in that statement as you stated. -OberRanks (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I also found an entry here [2] where it states the original order of Jefferson Davis was endorsed by the Confederate Congress. -OberRanks (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this one particular topic is relevant to the article as it stands now. I haven't seen "Glory, but if that's why it's notable, then it belongs in an "In popular culture" section. The article's pretty short right now, and I think it gives undue weight to this one decree to include it without more. It might be factual, but POV can also be found in choosing what facts to present and what not to present. Considering that the Confederacy only existed during wartime, much of its legislation would deal with war and the military, but why does this one resolution deserve a paragraph when only three other acts are even mentioned. And, no, it doesn't directly say anything against the South, but having the only described piece of legislation be about executing slaves can come across as pushing the racism angle. Like I said before, the topic certainly has a place here, but, other than its mention in "Glory", what makes this act notable? PaulGS (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, why list this resolution here? The overall entry has nothing to do with CSA legislature, slaves, or prisoners of war. It seems the focus of this article is on the army of the Confederate States. Listing this note here, reguardless if it was of presidental decree or congressional resolution, detracts from this article's original theme. It would fit better on a page focused with the tales of Civil War prisoners, actions of slaves during the war, or other happenings directed towards black Union troops or officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.168.74 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph keeps getting restored, and yet the citation still doesn't support it. The proclamation was issued by Jefferson Davis, and calling it legislation is just as inaccurate as calling an executive order an Act of Congress. The two are distinct, and I still don't see the need for this particular piece of information here, due to POV concerns. It comes across at "look at just how racist the South was", and while it's good that slavery is no longer around, it's also quite understandable why people who owned slaves and believed it was moral to do so wouldn't want an enemy army coming in and stirring up slave rebellions, especially when such rebellions in other countries had resulted in mass killings of whites. And the proclamation doesn't say what you claim it says - that black troops would be killed - only that armed slaves would be "at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said States". I suspect death would be a permitted punishment for this, but it's also quite possible that some lesser punishment could be imposed, and the order doesn't mandate death. It also says nothing about black troops from the North, which is what your paragraph implies. I'm removing this again, since it's unsupported by the citation. I don't know if two vs. one qualifies as a consensus, but there's that, too, for what it's worth. I'm also posting about this dispute at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to get more input on this (the issue is really WP:V, and that noticeboard got merged with this one. PaulGS (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said a long time ago, the section could just be rewritten. I just did that it now fits exactly with what the reference says and also mentions the Glory film reference. I think that should be just fine to met the standards expected. -OberRanks (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The section's much better now. PaulGS (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Take off Website in summery

There is no need to have a "Website" section in the Red Summary Column. This can imply that there was the internet back in the time period this congress took place and that this congress still exists today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.152.73 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however, this appears to be an issue with the Legislature infobox. There's no "website" parameter listed on this page, so I'm not sure why it's showing up. Maybe someone who knows more about how infoboxes work can fix it. PaulGS (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the template (Template:Infobox Legislature) so the website parameter is optional. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Territories and Indian tribes

The article notes that "The Confederate Congress had delegations from 13 states, territories and Indian tribes" but only the states appear in the table. Did territories send non-voting delegates of the sort in the US Congress, and if so which ones? Also, what exactly does "Indian tribes" refer to here? I know that Indian Territory in the Civil War was largely pro-Confederate -- did the whole territory send a territorial delegate, or did individual tribes send delegates? --Jfruh (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the territorial representation in the Confederate Congress were non-voting delegates.

No votes from territories appear in the roll call accounting of Kenneth C. Martis, “The historical atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America 1861-1865” (1994) ISBN 978-01-3-389115-7 pp.32, 34. The U.S. Congress provides for territorial delegates to vote in their assigned committees, but not on the floor, so they have no roll call votes.

In E. Merton Coulter “The Confederate States of America 1861-1865”, The history of the South, vol. VII, (1950) ISBN 978-08-0-710007-3 pp.50-53, recounts that there were four “delegates” seated in the Confederate Congress. The Confederacy assumed all treaty obligations of the United States, but it could not fulfill their treaty promises as time wore on and financial capacity declined.

One delegate represented Arizona, then, from the tribes in the Indian Territory, one for the Cherokee, one for the Creeks and Seminoles, and one for the Choctaw and Chickasaws. Choctaw and Chickasaw might apply for admission as a state, and the other Civilized Tribes nations might join them as mutually agreed. The Cherokee signatories were reluctantly last, John Ross faction fought with the Union, Sam Watie faction with the Confederacy. The Choctaw and Chickasaw never applied for statehood in the Confederacy. Native-American support from Indian Territory in the American Civil War is reported in Coulter as evenly divided. Plains Indians were not given representation, nor were they encouraged to join in the fighting.

Treaties with the eastern remnants of Cherokee and Seminole in Georgia, Alabama and Florida provided for no separate delegates. The more numerous Cherokees provided troops who fought in East Tennessee. Emory Thomas in "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" (1979) ISBN 978-00-6-131965-5 pp.188-189 in his chapter on foreign relations says that the "sometime Indian allies" acted in direct proportion to Confederate battlefield success precisely as did the European nations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Granville H. Oury was Delegate from Arizona, Elias Cornelius Boudinot represented the Cherokee and Samuel Benton Callahan the Seminole and Creek people and Robert McDonald Jones stood for the Choctaw and Chickasaw . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Page moving

This article's title should be moved to Confederate States Congress, as we have United States Congress. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

- Not sure how that it done, but I like the idea of consistent phrasing for ease of research and comparison. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Sounds good to me. -OberRanks (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Promotion to B-class

Following the six B-class criteria, I suggest promoting this article from Start Class to B-Class in all of its related projects:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

3. The article has a defined structure.

4. The article is reasonably well written.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree. The only weakness that jumps out at me is the lead. I would expect a good B class article to have at least a paragraph length lead.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Provisional Congress image

The image at the section Provisional Congress reads, "The Southern Confederacy - Senate Chamber in the Capitol at Montgomery, Alabama, during open session - the Hon. Howell Cobb presiding". It is of course a picture of the Southern Provisional Congress or maybe the Southern Provisional Convention, as the same membership chose to resolve themselves into different bodies depending on the purpose at hand. In any case, it is not an image of the Alabama Senate, but the Confederate state delegates in their chamber. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image move

I relocated the Richmond Capitol image from the info box, and located it in the First Confederate Congress section alongside the appropriate text of the meeting place in Richmond. This makes room in most browsers to view the Provisional Congress image meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, alongside the Provisional Congress section text, without jumbling the text sequence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review completed

A Peer Review was completed by User:Display name 99 at Wikipedia:Peer review/Congress of the Confederate States/archive1. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Contributions from Yearns book

In an effort to meet the critique of the failed Good Article review, I have now made contributions from summaries of half of the Yearns book (just over 100 of 218 pages of text), encompassing the chapters on session and confederation, life at the Confederate capitals, trial and error government, mobilization of manpower, conscription under attack, More Men!, and the loyal opposition.

Yet to come: a section in each session subsection following (a) mobilization as written with (b) economy and finance (economic organization, Financing the war), (c) conduct of the war (of officers and men, the conduct of the war, the writ of habeas corpus), and (c) foreign affairs (foreign affairs, the peace movement), including additional images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

“Fairly represent”

The constant reversions notwithstanding, it should be factually uncontroversial that the Confederate Congress did not “fairly represent” the slave population of the south. 2601:47:477F:E3E0:0:0:0:33E5 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)