Talk:Confederate States Congress/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An immediate question as I look through the article is the boundary between this article and the child articles on the three congresses. This article is considerably more detailed than any of the three. Shouldn't some of this material be moved to the child articles, and summarized here, rather than having so much detail at this summary level?

I'll hold off on reviewing the article until we've agreed on this, as it could change the article quite a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all of the information in this article related to each of the two sessions of the Confederate Congress to the "daughter" articles would make this article a stub. As currently written, two of the daughter articles are lists, and one is a stub. I suggest that during the GA review of this article, the information in the three daughter articles be incorporated here, and the daughter articles be removed, or alternatively that one remain as Lists of Confederate Congressional Membership for both Congresses, rather than maintaining two separate lists.

They each now promote the neo-Confederate flags which were not historically used by either Confederate armies or Confederate government buildings, with but few exceptions when mistaken as a flag of surrender at Fort Sumter or not at all in the case of the "Blood Stained Banner". David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the Blood-stained Banner was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the Blood-stained Banner.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy” -- for the duration; Coulter makes no note of any other. This is the Wikipedia editor consensus maintained at Confederate States of America and American Civil War based on the preponderance of scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to eliminate the child articles and have them redirect here; I just wanted to make sure there was no duplication. I'll go ahead with the review with the expectation that that will happen; you might want to post a note to those articles' talk pages to suggest the redirect in case there is opposition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert any mistakes I make.

~~The lead seems a little short for the length of the article; I think it could usefully be expanded a bit.~~

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences of the body jumps right in to the midst of events. I think a couple of sentences of background would help a reader unfamiliar with the history. Can we set the scene, with Lincoln's election and the dissension in the south leading to secession conventions, and then to the votes in each state?

I concur . . . working on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph starts Deputies from the first seven states to convene as the Confederate Provisional Congress, but as far as I can tell from the rest of the section, this was the group that established the Provisional Congress so they did not initially meet as that body. The secession ordinances presumably authorized delegates or deputies to meet and negotiate a provisional constitution, and we should give the sequence of events as it happened.

I concur . . . Deputies from the first seven states convening in Montgomery, Alabama resolved themselves into the Confederate Provisional Congress. Delegations from Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, met in the Alabama State Capitol in two sessions in February through May 1861. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little more barebones than I was expecting, but it does the trick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was one vote for each sovereign state: "sovereign" is used in the constitution, but does it tell the reader anything here?
It reminds the reader that the Confederate Constitution was more states' rights than the Articles of Confederation. Some of Civil War literature asserts that the Confederacy "died of states' rights". In a way it is foreshadowing for the interpretive section that follows further down in the article. I am fine with dropping the qualifier. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest dropping it; to a reader ignorant of what is being foreshadowed it says nothing at all, and even sounds like it might be padding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have one article on the Confederate States Constitution, and one on the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States, which apparently was what was approved in February 1861. (The latter article gives the exact date, February 4, by the way; might as well include that in this article if the sourcing is good.) Here we say They drafted and approved the Confederate States Constitution on February 8; should this refer to (and link to) the provisional constitution, and not the subsequent one?
I am not sure we have a copy of the provisional one . . . is there a convention such as a footnote where we could explain the link is to the permanent Constitution, and not the provisional -- or are they the same? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think my question wasn't clear. The article says On February 28, 1861, the Provisional Congress adopted the Permanent Confederate Constitution. Was the constitution they adopted this one, and one on the this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

The Provisional Congress resolved itself into a Constitutional Convention each day from February 28 to March 11, adopting the Permanent Constitution on March 11 (Yearns, p. 22) and all state secessionist conventions ratified without a referendum (Yearns, p. 29). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be some conflict between the dates given here and in the two articles about the confederate constitutions. Here we say that the provisional congress adopted the permanent constitution on 2/28/1861; the two articles on the constitutions say that happened on 2/22/1862.

Yearns (p.24) reports the date of the Provisional Congress ratifying the Provisional Constitution as February 8, 1861 --- and the Provisional Congress daily resolved itself into a Constitutional Convention February 28 to March 11 when it adopted the Permanent Constitution and sent it to the state secessionist conventions for ratification (p.22, 29). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am securing my own copy of The Confederate Congress to double check dates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the remaining six states admitted to the Confederate States of America with representation in its Congresses met in three additional sessions: a bit compressed. Can we give the list of states? And what was the process of admitting them -- did that involve action of the Provisional Congress or was it done by executive order? Was it only these six states that met in Virginia for these sessions, which is how it sounds with the current wording, or were these full sessions of the Provisional Congress?
I concur that clarification and expansion is useful . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Martis: Montgomery, Alabama served as the capital of the Confederate States of America from February 4 until May 29, 1861, in the Alabama State Capitol. Six states created the Confederate States of America there on February 8, 1861. Texas immediately followed. Two sessions of the Provisional Congress were held in Montgomery, adjourning May 21.

From wp editor OR at Provisional Congress of the Confederate States: The Third Session of the Provisional Congress was held at Richmond from July 20, 1861, to August 31, 1861.[2] Members were present from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina,[7] and Tennessee.[8] -- to be confirmed.

From Martis The naming of Richmond as the new capital took place on May 30, 1861, and the last two sessions of the Provisional Congress [the 4th beginning September 3, 1861 and the 5th beginning November 18] were held in the new capital. The Permanent Confederate Congress and President were elected in the states and army camps on November 6, 1861. The First Congress met in four sessions in Richmond from February 18, 1862, to February 17, 1864. The Second Congress met there in two sessions, from May 2, 1864, to March 18, 1865.

More research and a table to follow later this week. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following President Davis' felt need for the Confederacy to embrace both Kentucky and Missouri, in late August, the Provisional Congress appropriated $1 million each to secure secession in unsure Kentucky and Missouri: presumably this means the Congress was in session in August, but you don't say so, unless this is one of the three sessions mentioned above, in which case it's not clear those included all the states. Also, there's no need to mention the states' names twice; just make it "in those states" at the end.

I concur, clarification and simplification on the way . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Provisional Congress in the Fifth Session reached: no dates are given for this. I assume from the fact that this is the Fifth that the three mentioned earlier are in fact the second through fourth sessions; that should be made clearer. I think it would be worthwhile to give explicit dates for each session, perhaps in a table -- that would let you concisely give start and end dates, location, and attendees.

I concur, a table would be very helpful . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions of the Congress of the Confederate States of America
Congress	Session	Place	Date Convened	Date Adjourned	States & Territories Attending
Provisional	1st S.	Montgomery, Alabama	Feb 4, 1861	Mar 16, 1861	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX
Provisional	2nd S.	Montgomery	Apr 29, 1861	May 21, 1861	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK
Provisional	3rd S.	Richmond, Virginia	Jul 20, 1861	Aug 31, 1861	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN
Provisional	4th S.	Richmond	Sep 3, 1861	Sep 3, 1861	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN
Provisional	5th S.	Richmond	Nov 18, 1861	Feb 17, 1862	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr.
1st Cong.	1st S.	Richmond	Feb 18, 1862	Apr 21, 1862	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong.	2nd S.	Richmond	Aug 18, 1862	Oct 13, 1862	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong.	3rd S.	Richmond	Jan 12, 1863	May 1, 1863	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong.	4th S.	Richmond	Dec 7, 1863	Feb 18, 1864	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
2nd Cong.	1st S.	Richmond	May 2, 1864	Jun 14, 1864	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
2nd Cong.	2nd S.	Richmond	Nov 7, 1864	Mar 18, 1865	AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Creek and Seminole Nations

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good. Might I suggest splitting the first column into three? One column headed "Congress", which would say "Provisional", "First", or "Second"; as second column headed "Session", which would have a numeral; and a third headed "Place". You might also title the last column "Member states & territories in attendance", or something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~requiring western theater military decisions otherwise uncalled for: this will be opaque to most readers.~~

I concur, perhaps "requiring offensive military decisions that might otherwise have been unnecessary" -- since Kentucky held itself out as neutral. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

providing a solid two-state delegation support for the Jefferson Davis government throughout the existence of the Confederacy: how does this follow? Without knowing the political context it's hard to understand why these two states matter to Davis.

I concur, the observation should be expanded noting the combined delegation of eighteen votes (17% of the House) as a starting point for each Davis proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Treaties with the five civilized tribes: who are these tribes? At least a link would be good; an inline explanation or a footnote would be better.~~

Will do, Five Civilized Tribes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the short-lived claim to the far western Arizona Territory, by the end of 1861 the Confederacy had gained the greatest extent of its territorial expansion. After that point, its de facto governance contracted as Union military actions prevailed. I think this is only relevant if we can talk about representation in the Congress of this territory.

I concur. On page 40 of Yearns, we have the seating of a non-voting territorial delegate from Arizona on January 18, 1862. I will add something when I get The Confederate Congress, due tomorrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a date and location for the last (and apparently the sixth) Provisional Congress?

I think that Yearns will be of some help, effective by the end of this week. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~There was a rapid turnover in membership, in part to some securing an officer's commission for military service: looks like a word is missing; should it be "in part due to some members securing"?~~

I concur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is the Richmond Daily Examiner worth a redlink?~~

It should read, Daily Richmond Examiner, due to the unconventional name configuration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It became popular to believe that the loss and self-destruction of a city would make little difference in the ultimate outcome of the war; the vast size of the Confederacy would make its conquest impossible: I don't follow this. If the destruction of a city would make no difference to the outcome, why were some Congressmen advocating a scorched earth policy? Or is the point that most people disagreed with these Congressmen?
The Confederate Congress promoted torching Southern cities as a deliberate strategy reminiscent of the Russian strategy adopted facing the onslaught of Napoleon's invasion. Lost Cause historian attributed all civilian property destruction to the Yankees, which was not historically factual. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful explanation, but I don't see it in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thus by the spring of 1862, it was obvious that if the Confederacy were to survive, Southerners were of necessity changing their ante-bellum world view including constitutional principles, economic markets and political axioms. I don't follow this. The article has said little or nothing to this point about principles, markets, or politics.

Agreed, the observation as sourced needs expansion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

Thank you, this is very helpful. The dates I used were from sources cited as I understood them at first reading, I'd like to double check myself and also to see if sources disagree as to dates, which is less likely. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- if you like, I can pause the review till you've dealt with these points, and then continue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to continue -- shall I make responses under each of the bullets above rather than restating them below? I have read into The Confederate Congress, referenced in related articles, to extend the introduction, which I will do shortly.

By week’s end I should have both The Confederate Congress (1935,2010) by Wilfred Buck Yearns, and The Anatomy of the Confederate Congress: A study of the influences of member characteristics on legislative voting behavior, 1861-1865 (1972) by Thomas Benjamin Alexander. These additions to my personal library are meant to be used as references to expand the coverage and quality of my contributions to this article.

It has been almost ten months of waiting in the GA queue with one false start. I'd like to keep going. I did not mean to imply above that I was careless as a matter of habit. I do not want to somehow leave the impression that I am not invested in improving this article, because I am. --- Shall I make responses under each of the bullets above? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to continue; I should be able to post more notes later this week. Yes, please respond under each point -- that way it's easy for us both to keep track of what's been done and what hasn't. I understand about the long wait. You might consider doing the occasional GA review to help keep the queue down; there's no requirement to do so, but of course the more people review, the shorter the queue gets. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies posted above. Overall I think the article has most of what it needs; the problems are organizational, and in some cases I think caused by the fact that you know the material well and don't realize what needs contextualizing. So long as progress is being made I'm happy to keep the review open. I'll follow up with another section of notes below, tonight if I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second review section

Some thoughts before I dive into the next paragraphs. What I would expect from an article with this title (not necessarily in this order, and not necessarily structured like this), are these areas:

Facts and dates about the sessions -- when they took place and where
Historical antecedents and influences -- relationship to the US Congress
Administrative/electoral details -- how and when elections were held, who had suffrage at the time, what the results were, whether the elections were contested, relationship with the rest of government
Significant acts/legislation, with dates, reasons for the legislation, impact of the legislation, and prime movers in the debates. This includes the two constitutions, of course.
Supporting historical context -- basic background of the secession, and some discussion of the political or military context for the legislation,
Notable members and their acts -- this might just be incorporated into the discussion of the legislation.
Historiography -- I'm guessing, but I would expect there to be some work done on historiographical approaches to the Civil War, and some of that might be of interest here, if it exists.

Looking through, I see most of this, but I sometimes see some narrative material that doesn't seem to belong here. The paragraph starting "Thus by the spring of 1862", for example, is more of a war narrative paragraph, and doesn't bear on the Congress specifically. If you imagine that all articles about the Confederacy are completed and in great shape, that sort of narrative would belong to articles on the history of the war, or the history of the Confederacy. This article should read more like United States Congress: some history, certainly, though not much, as it only lasted a few years, but a focus on powers, acts, structure, and procedures. I also think Virginia Conventions, which I recall you worked on, does a pretty good job along those lines -- almost every word in that article is focused on the conventions themselves.

Anyway, back to reading through.

company-grade officers: I don't know what this means.

company-grad officers, captain and below.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to its "class-exemption system" deferring school teachers, pilots and iron foundry workers: river pilots, presumably? A link would be good.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this sentence is written as if we already knew about these exemptions and the reason for them; we don't, but this is the sort of thing I think the article should go into.
The discussion of the draft is interesting; is there a possible target article for a redlink -- perhaps Confederate Army draft, or something like that?

A discussion is found at Confederate_States_Army#Control_and_conscription -- not sure where to squeeze it in the text as written. There is not much more there, maybe less. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following an intercession: I assume this should be "intersession"? I would cut it, though; starting with "The second session..." makes it redundant.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the third session of the First Congress ran from January 12, 1863, until May1: needs copyediting.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of that paragraph lists battles that appear to have nothing to do with the Congress.

I thought it gave chronological context of special interest to those more familiar with the progress of the military operations, and in any case, of relevance to the growing opposition to Davis war policies and the peace movement within the Confederacy -- voiced in Congress, referenced some in Martis, and that I hope to expand upon with the Yearns book. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate Congress never developed a coherent anti-administration party: in fact little has been said about divisions within the Congress. Even if there was no coherent "anti-Davis" party, surely there were factions of one sort or another, or at least different interests represented?

More can be developed beyond Martis with Yearns beginning tomorrow, I hope. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although authorized in the Confederate States Constitution, Congress did not establish a Supreme Court: this seems oddly placed, in the middle of a section on the First Congress. It's not something the First Congress didn't do; it's something none of the Congresses did. Shouldn't it be in a section about the relationship between Congress and the rest of the government?

Sentence deleted. Agreed, discussion on branches of government can be expanded.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of that paragraph is likewise a general overview comment that doesn't seem to belong here.

Aha. This answers the previous question about Southern "political philosophy". Agree, there needs to be some reorganization. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again I think the dates of the intersession in 1863 can be skipped; they're simply the space between the dates you'll give in the table.

Dates of the intersession are deleted. Again, some narrative of the progress of arms to put the Congressional sessions in context, as the over-arching mission of the Congress at the time was a success at arms to achieve independence.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the section covers some important legislation quite quickly; surely some of this could be expanded? For example, the Compulsory Funding Measure is quite unexplained; how was it supposed to work, and why did it fail?

With any luck at all, Yearns will provide an answer the Martis, Coulter and Thomas did not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and it had a turnover of forty percent: do you mean turnout? Or do you mean 40% of the delegation was ousted by challengers? If so a bit more detail seems warranted; do we know why they were ousted?

clarified, "Virginia's delegation had a turnover" clarified text: "The war was going badly for not only Virginia, but the South generally during the other elections, and citizens were adversely affected by conscription, taxes, food supply and the economy generally."

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the earlier personality contests over most enthusiastic support of secession in the elections to the First Congress: a bit compressed; how about "Unlike the elections to the First Congress, which were often personality contests over who could demonstrate the most enthusiastic support of secession,..."?

"Unlike elections to the First Congres which were often personality contests over who showed the most enthusiastic support of secession, Congressmen facing re-election had roll-call voting records that they had to defend."

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the state delegations saw a turnover of half or more: we mention roll-call records as reasons for defeats; what votes were particularly troublesome, do we know?

We've mentioned votes on conscription, ending deferments, taxes taken in produce and livestock. I hope to expand on these later this week. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of elections in each state, just over forty percent of the House was occupied or disrupted by Union forces: I don't know what "forty percent of the House" means; and given that the elections took a year to complete, I don't really know what "At the time of elections" means either.

clarified: forty percent of the Congressional Districts" were disrupted or occupied by November 1863, more as the elections progressed. There was no reversal in territory lost by the Confederacy, only continuous loss throughout the duration.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

former Democrats politicians: should this be "Democratic"?

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What were the political stances of the Whigs and Democrats? With the Whigs coming in, what was the effect, if any?

This needs elaboration. Whigs were the backbone of Unionist resistance to secession in the "Secessionist" Conventions in the border states, succeeding in Missouri, Kentucky, failing in Virginia and Tennessee. The effect of their re-election, this time in the Confederate Congress, was an increase in the peace faction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

newspapers would not publish the exchange for fears of their personal safety: I don't follow; the journalists would have been at risk in some way?

Yes, that is my reading of Coulter; Congressmen and editors threatened one another with duels, throwing inkwells, battering with umbrellas. To take sides in the press was to invite personal physical attack. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military glory redounded to those on the battlefield: tone down a bit; not encyclopedic language.

"Military glory could be had on the battlefield, but Congress and Congressmen were held in contempt,"

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, one historian of the Confederacy assessed the Congress as "better than its critics made it.": this seems a summary sentence that should be in a late section, perhaps an assessment or historiography section. It doesn't seem to belong in the middle of the section on the Second Congress. There are quite a few other summarizing or assessing statements in this section; much of the rest of this paragraph, for example, has nothing specifically to do with the second Congress. There's very little about the actions of this Congress.

Agreed, needs expanding. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legislation" section seems unrealistically short.
The "Apportionment and representation" section doesn't discuss the provisional constitution at all; surely there's something to be said?

Until the permanent Constitution and elections, there is no apportionment -- but I see your point, there should be something on the one-vote per state delegation referenced earlier repeated again in this section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section doesn't mention the territories, which apparently did have delegations, per your draft table.
Then, for 1863–1865, only the newly made West Virginia had U.S. representation. West Virginians living in counties not under Federal control, however, continued to participate in Confederate elections: to understand this requires that the reader understand how West Virginia came into being, which isn't a given. Also, if those West Virginians were voting for Virginia representatives, we should say so.

Agreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest eliminating the "Media depictions" section, unless you can find reliable sources about the Congress that discuss the depictions as being notable, or perhaps historiographically interesting. Sources about the depictions themselves aren't enough to make something worth including; there are innumerable depictions of the south in film and book form.

Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cut the categories from the "See also" section, and anything linked in the body of the article should also go.

I wonder what your rationale may be. At MOS:SEEALSO, we have, "Contents: A bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. ... The list should be sorted either logically, chronologically, or at least alphabetically. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I don't think this can make GA in a reasonable time. There's a great deal of good material here, but there seems to be quite a bit missing for it to qualify as "Broad in its coverage", which is a GA requirement. Structurally I think quite a bit of work is needed. The prose is acceptable, and I don't see any problems with neutrality or verifiability.

However, I hate to fail an article that has been waiting for such a long time for a review without waiting for your response. I recommend that we agree that the article should fail, and I would then be OK with commenting on the article as you continue to work on it, away from GA. This is an important article, and I would prefer to see it done right, rather than done quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your critique. I will defer on your judgment about the article's placement on the GA scale -- so I agree that the article should fail in its present form -- but I hope it can be kept open three more days through Friday February 23 so I can complete the checklists as given as far as I can -- that will be a six day review from start to finish.

I anticipate that much related to shortcomings in "Broad in its coverage" will be filled in with The Confederate Congress shipped and due this Wednesday. Anatomy of the Confederate Congress is shipped and due before this coming Monday. I am intent on pursuing this article to GA, in part because of my interest in legislatures and conventions as expressions of political community -- with nuance that the summary sources I've used to date (Martis, Coulter, Thomas) do not relate.

I very much hope that you will continue your guidance and copyediting. Can both checklists from the GA page be transferred entirely to the article Talk page with our updates, or will it be lost when the GA nomination is closed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: My earlier effort at GA article nomination for Siege of Fort Pulaski was an effort in narrative history combining scholarly sources along with accounts from the Official Records of the Confederate and Union Army and the Union and Confederate Navy -- the amphibious operation was given especially short shrift in Union Army accounts.

It was in discussions related to this article that I first bumped into the WP (systemic?) bias for army and against navy and amphibious narrative. A bias again confronted in the failure to promote Bombardment of Cherbourg due to lack of coverage of Army land maneuvers and Army medal winners. -- In an effort to appease landlubber critics, I even cut a substantial section on the role of destroyers in the operation, to no avail.

I found that subsequent editing by others sometimes lost my sourcing in both articles, and I became discouraged in my efforts to replicate the research. Now, I take some satisfaction in seeing the Page Views occasionally spike to near 100 in both Siege of Pulaski and Bombardment of Cherbourg, which I happily imagine to mean that the articles are being used in some sort of classroom or seminar exercise -- psychic reward for the retired school teacher, even if WP Good Article status is out of reach. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a fail, the GA review will remain on the talk page, and although it will be closed and should not be edited, it will be there for reference and can be copied to the talk page for further work. So there's no harm in failing it right away. However, I'm fine with leaving it open for a few more days; if I don't hear from you by the weekend I'll probably go ahead and fail it, but will be happy to comment on the talk page as needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mean to stay at it a bit more over the next few days before my next WP break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks again for the rewarding GA review, much more satisfactory than my previous experiences, and lots more to work through. (I was not able to barnstorm it like I thought, even retired life can intervene in one's Wikipedia career.) Nevertheless, I've reorganized the article overall by Confederate Congress and Congressional Session, following Martis in "Atlas of the Confederate States of America", and populated the article with additional illustrative images. I'm 40% through Yearns "The Confederate Congress" and elaborated on the elections for Provisional, First and Second Congresses.

I anticipate writing narrative as appropriate to each session on debates and legislation related to (1) Manpower, conscription, impressment and deferments; (2) Economic Organization, taxation and appropriation; (3) Nationalization and States Rights; and (4) Foreign Affairs and Peace Movement, -- as these reflect the chapter divisions found in Yearns "The Confederate Congress" and Alexander and Beringer "The Anatomy of the Confederate Congress", both now in my possession.

Yearns, Alexander, and Martis all conclude that the Union-occupied or disrupted status of a congressional district was influential or determinative in a particular Representative or Senator's vote on many issues, and all account for the progress of arms during the sessions of the Confederate Congress. I hope I will be able to persuade you to the importance of this point.

I understand from previous GA reviews that the See Also section should not include articles referenced in the article with the templates for Main Article and See Also. Is that the main issue you have with the See Also section as it is (collaboratively) written? I was thinking of adding another of the articles I have contributed to, Virginia Secession Convention of 1861, there may be others related to additional states . . . I had a great time creating start class biographies on the convention delegates there. I think this is already done for the members of the Confederate Congresses -- just with the wrong flag (sigh).

Thanks again for your attention and contributions to this article. Lots more to do before re-applying for a GA review again. Please do check in periodically to double check against our to-do list for completed items and to review additional narrative as it is laid down. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this has been positive; I always enjoy working with knowledgeable editors who want to improve articles, and I look forward to seeing future versions of this one. Re the "See also" section -- per WP:SEEALSO the list of links is a matter of editorial judgement. My feeling has usually been that if something is relevant enough that I think the reader might care about it, then I should be discussing it in the article. I rarely have more than one or two of these links in articles I work on. However, that's not everyone's opinion, so don't take my word as any kind of edict. I agree the military state of a district is going to have a lot of influence on representatives; so long as the connection is made clear when the military situation is mentioned I think that's fine.

I'm going to go ahead and fail the article, as we discussed. I will try to look in periodically but I do get pretty busy so I'm not sure how often it will be. All the best with this and other future articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]